A WORLD BANKTECHNICAL PAPER WTP-15
Sheep and Goats in Developing Countries Their Present and Potential Role Public Disclosure Authorized
Winrock International FILECOPY Public Disclosure Authorized
11-, r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. Pr !a 2 Public Disclosure Authorized
. I Public Disclosure Authorized
A WORLD BANK TECHNICALPAPER
Sheep and Goats in Developing Countries Their Present and Potential Role
Winrock International
The World Bank Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Copyright c 1983 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLDBANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
First printing December 1983 All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America
This is a document published informally by the World Bank. In order that the information contained in it can be presented with the least possible delay, the typescript has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. The publication is supplied at a token charge to defray part of the cost of manufacture and distribution.
The views and interpretations in this document are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to any individual acting on their behalf. Any maps used have been prepared solely for the convenience of the readers; the denominations used and the boundaries shown do not imply, on the part of the World Bank and its affiliates, any judgment on the legal status of any territory or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
The full range of World Bank publications, both free and for sale, is described in the Catalog of Publications; the continuing research program is outlined in Abstracts of Current Studies. Both booklets are updated annually; the most recent edition of each is available without charge from the Publications Sales Unit, Department T, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from the European Office of the Bank, 66, avenue d'Iena, 75116 Paris, France.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title:
Sheep and goats in developing countries.
(A World Bank technical paper, ISSN 0253-7494 ; ) Bibliography: p. 1. Sheep--Developing countries. 2. Goats--Developing countries. I. Winrock International Livestock Research and Training Center. II. Series. SF375.5.D44S54 1983 338.1'763'0091724 83-23315 ISBN 0-8213-0272-8 - iii -
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study are to assess the role of small ruminants (sheep and goats) in the food production systems of developing countries,examine their advantages and disadvantages,analyze the constraintslimiting their further contributionto the welfare of small farm/low income rural producers, prescribemeasures for overcoming these constraints,and make recommendationsrelated to potential donor involve- ment in support of the developmentof sheep and goat production. Small ruminants are viewed as an integral,but not dominant componentof complex agriculturalsystems. Particular emphasis is placed on sheep and goats in mixed herds grazing dry rangelands and in small mixed farm systems in medium to high rainfall areas. An analysis of major constraints-- ecological,biological, policy, and socio-economic-- leads to recommenda- tions on the need for a balanced production system approach for research, training and developmentprograms, and for a combinationof support activities such as herd health programs, and formulationof favorable credit, marketing and pricing policies for small ruminants and their products. -iv-
ABSTRAIT
La presente etude vise a evaluer le r6le des petits ruminants (moutons
et chevres) dans le cadre des systemes de productionalimentaire des pays en
developpement,A examiner leurs avantageset inconv6nients,A analyser les
obstaclesqui les empechent de contribuerdavantage a la prosperite des petits
exploitantset des producteursruraux a faible revenu, A indiquer les mesures
susceptiblesde surmonter ces obstacleset enfin A formuler des recommandations
sur la maniere dont des donateurs d'aide pourraienteventuellement contribuer A
l'accroissementde la productionovine et caprine. Les petits ruminantssont
considerescomme faisant partie int6grantede syst6mes agricolescomplexes, sans
toutefoisen constituer l'el6mentpredominant. Une importanceparticuliere est
accordee au paturage combin6 de moutons et de chevres dans des zones de pacage
seches et dans de petites exploitationsmixtes situ6es dans des r6gions A pluviometriemoyenne a forte. Une analyse des principauxobstacles -
6cologiques,biologiques, politiques et socio-economiques- aboutit A des recommandationsquant A la necessit6de fonder les programmes de recherche,de
formationet de d6veloppement,sur un systeme de production equilibre,de combiner des activitesde soutien telles que les programmeszoosanitaires, et de formuler des politiques favorablesde cr6dit, de commercialisationet des prix pour les petits ruminantset leurs produits d6rives. v
EXTRACTO
Los objetivos de este estudio consistenen evaluar la funci6n de los pequefiosrumiantes (ovejasy cabras) en los sistemas de producci6nde alimentos de los paises en desarrollo,examinar sus ventajas y desventajas,analizar las limitacionesque impiden su mayor contribuci6nal bienestar de los productores rurales con pequefiasexplotaciones y bajos ingresos,prescribir medidas para superar estas limitacionesy formular recomendacionesrelativas a la participa- ci6n de posibles donantes que apoyen el desarrollode la producci6n de ovejas y cabras. Los pequefiosrumiantes se consideranun componente integralpero no dominante de sistemas agricolas complejos. Se da especial importanciaa las ovejas y cabras en los rebafioscombinados que pacen en los terrenos de pastos secos y en pequeniossistemas agricolasmixtos en zonas de precipitacionesmedias y altas. Un analisis de las principalesrestricciones ecol6gicas, biol6gicas, politicasy socioecon6micasderiva en recomendacionessobre la necesidadde un enfoque equilibradode sistemas de producci6nen relaci6n con programas de investigaci6n,capacitaci6n y desarrolloy una combinaci6nde actividadesde apoyo tales como programas de salud animal y la formulaci6nde politicas favora- bles de cr6dito, comercializaci6ny fijaci6n de precios para los pequefios rumiantesy sus productos. - vi -
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Appreciation is expressed to Don Sutherland who developed the terms of reference and shared his considerable experience during the planning of this study. Ned Raun and Jim Yazman participated in the planning stages of the project. Dick Wheeler, Andy Martinez, Bob Hart, and other Winrock colleagues participated in preliminary discussions of organization and content. Beth Henderson, Wikorn De Boer, and John Crofoot assisted in gathering of technical information. Shirley Zimmerman and Jamie Whittington typed numerous drafts under time pressure but always with careful attention to detail and good will towards the authors.
Project Co-leaders: A. J. De Boer, H. A. Fitzhugh
Other Team Members: R. H. Bernsten, W. Getz, D. W. Robinson (University of California, Davis) CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY OF STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 1 1.1. Summary of Study ...... 1 1.2. Summary of Recommendations ...... 2
2. INTRODUCTION ...... 7 2.1. Study Terms of Reference, Background and Objectives . 7 2.1.1. Terms of Reference ...... 7 2.1.2. Background to the Study ...... 9 2.1.3. Study Objectives ...... 9 2.2. Agriculture ...... 9 2.3. Animals ...... 10 2.4. Ruminants ...... 10 2.5. Small Ruminants ...... 12
3. PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ...... 14 3.1. Ecological Classification ...... 14 3.1.1. Desert Shrub and Woodland Shrub Ranges . . . 14 3.1.2. Tropical Savannah Ranges ...... 16 3.1.3. Tropical Forest Ranges ...... 19
3.2. Agriculture Use Systems ...... 19 3.2.1. Animal Based ...... 20 3.2.2. Mixed Crop and Animal ...... 20 3.2.3. Crop-based Farms ...... 21
3.3. Small Ruminants in Mixed Farming Systems...... 21
4. SHEEP AND GOATS ...... 28 4.1. Characteristics--Advantages and Disadvantages. . . . 28 4.1.1. Small Size ...... 28 4.1.2. Reproductive Efficiency ...... 28 4.1.3. Feeding Behavior .. . . . 30 4.1.4. Feed Utilization Efficiency. . . . 30 4.1.5. Fitness ...... 31 4.1.6. Socioeconomic ...... 33
4.2. Genetic Resources ...... 33 4.2.1. Breed Types ...... 33 4.2.2. Genetic Improvement Strategies ...... 36 - viii -
4.3. Population, Products and Productivity ...... 40 4.3.1. Population ...... 40 4.3.2. Products ...... 40 4.3.3. Product3vityin DevelopingRegions vs Developed Regions ...... 47
4.4. Consumption and Trade...... 48 4.4.1. Consumption ...... 48 4.4.2. Meat Trade and Relative Prices ...... 56
5. CONSTRAINTS TO INCREASED SMALL RUMINANT PRODUCTIVITY . . . 61 5.1. EScological . . . . 0...... 9.... *... 61 5.2. Biological Constraints ...... 62 5.2.1. Nutrition ...... *. . . . 62 5.2.2. Health ...... 63 5.2.3. Genotype ...... 64
5.3. Socioeconomic Constraints ...... 64 5.3.1. Inputs and Outputs ...... 65 5.3.2. Comparative Economics ...... 68 5.3.3. Sociological and Cultural Aspects ...... 70 5.3.4. Marketing System Constraints ...... 71 5.3.5. Institutional and Policy Constraints . . . . 73
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 75 6.1. Specific Recommendations ...... 76
7. REVIEW OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SHEEP AND GOATS ...... 82 7.1. Introduction ...... 82 7.2. Limitations ...... 82 7.3. Results ...... 83
APPENDIX TABLES ...... 87!
REFERENCES ...... 109 - ix -
LIST OF FIGURES
4.4.1.1. World Meat Production by Region ...... 52
4.4.1.2. World Meat Consumption, by Region, 1967-1977 . . . . . 53
4.4.1.3. Per Capita Sheep and Goat Meat Consumption, by Region, 1967-1977 ...... 55
4.4.2.1. Interregional Trade Flow of Sheep and Goat Meat, 1977 ...... *9otoo. o...... 57
5.3.1.1. Approximate Rankings of Labor Requirements for Small Ruminants Within and Between Ecozones ...... 65 x
LIST OF TABLES
2.4.1. Ruminant Products Utilized by People ...... 11
3.1.1. World Distribution and Characteristics of Four Major Tropical Ecotypes ...... 15
3.3.1. Proportion of National Populations of Sheep and Goats Found on Small Farms (<5 ha), % ...... 22
3.3.2. Developing Regions Small Farm Systems in Which Small Ruminants are Important ...... 24-27
4.1.2.1. Growth Rates of Animal Numbers in Tropical Africa . . . 29
4.1.4.1. Comparison of Efficiency of Food Protein Produc- tion from Sheep and Goats in Developed and Developing Regions ...... 32
4.1.5.1. Daily Water Turnover Among Animals Grazing To- gether ...... 32
4.2.1.1. Summary of Goat Breeds and Types by Region and Principal Purpose ...... 34
4.2.1.2. Summary of Sheep Breeds and Types by Region and Principal Purpose ...... 34
4.2.1.3. Numbers of Sheep Breeds Classified by Coat, Tail Type and Region ...... 35
4.2.2.1. Important Traits for Sheep and Goat Production in Developing Countries ...... 37
4.2.2.2. Averages for Production Traits and Indices for Hair Sheep Breeds...... 38
4.3.1.1. Changes in Regional Cattle, Sheep, and Goat Popu- lations from 1961-65 to 1980 ...... 41
4.3.1.2. Relative Importance of Sheep and Goats ...... 42
4.3.2.1. Relative Value of Sheep and Goat Products, x ...... 43
4.3.2.2. Location of Separable Fat in Goats and Lambs, % . . 43
4.3.2.3. Sensory Panel Rating for Palatability Character- istics of Cooked Loin .44
4.3.2.4. Lactation Traits for Some Breeds of Dairy Sheep . . . . 45 - xi -
4.3.2.5. Lactation Traits for Dairy Goat Breeds in Temper- ate and Tropical Environments ...... 45
4.3.2.6. Composition of Fresh Milk from Sheep, Goats, and Cattle, % ...... 45
4.3.3.1. Comparison of Changes in Small Ruminant Numbers and Productivity Between 1972 and 1981 ...... 47
4.3.3.2. Productivity of Regional Goat Populations ...... 49
4.3.3.3. Productivity of Regional Sheep Populations ...... 50
4.3.3.4. Production of Scoured Wool and Fresh Hides from Small Ruminants, 1981 ...... 51
4.4.1.2 Contributions of Sheep and Goats to Regional and World Supplies of Meat and Milk ...... 54
4.4.2.1. Unweighted Ratio of Live Weight Farmgate Prices of Cattle/Prices of Sheep and Goats in Africa and Latin America for 1962, 1966, and 1970 ...... 56
4.4.2.2. Export Prices of Beef in Current Dollars and in 1981 Constant Dollars (U.S. cents/kg F.O.B.) . . . . . 59
4.4.2.3. Growth of World Consumption of Beef and Selected Cereal Products and Changes in Consumption Shares, 1961-1980 ...... 60
7.3.1. Summary of Projects by Production System Focus, Primary Objective and Species Focus ...... 84 - xii -
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
1. Goat Breed Types Classified According to Region of Origin and Purpose ...... 88
2. Sheep Breed Types Classified According to Region of Origin, Coat Type, Tail Type, and Purpose . . . . . 90
3. Farmgate Prices of Cattle and Small Ruminantsin Africa for 1962, 1966, and 1970 (price per kg live weight, local currency) ...... 97
4. Farmgate Prices of Cattle and Small Ruminants in Latin America and the Caribbean for 1962, 1966, and 1970 (price per kg live weight, local currency) ...... 99
5. Farmgate Prices of Cattle and Small Ruminants in Asia for 1962, 1966, and 1970 (price per kg live weight, local currency) . . a ...... 100
6. Index Numbers of Prices Received by Farmers in Latin America ...... a ...... 101
7. Index Numbers of Prices Received by Farmers in Africa ...... , ...... 102
8. Index Numbers of Prices Received by Farmers in Asia o 103
9. Latin America and Caribbean: Summary of Re- search, Development,Credit, and Training Projects with Possible Sheep and Goat Components . . 104
10. Mid-East and North Africa: Summary of Research, Development,Credit, and Training Projects with Possible Sheep and Goat Components ...... 105
11. Sub-SaharanAfrica: Summary of Research, Devel- opment, Credit, and Training Projects with Possi- ble Sheep and Goat Components ...... 106
12. South and SoutheastAsia: Summary of Research, Development,Credit, and Training Projects with Possible Sheep and Goat Components ...... 107
13. Europe and North America: Summary of Research, Development,Credit, and Training Projects with Possible Sheep and Goat Components ...... 108 1. SUMMARYOF STUDYAND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1. sumary of Study
The objectives of this study are to assess the role of small ruminants in the food production systems of developing countries,exam- ine their advantages and disadvantages,analyze the constraints limiting their further contribution to the welfare of small farm/low income rural producers, prescribe measures for overcoming these constraints, and make recommendations related to potential World Bank involvement in support of sheep and goats.
The small ruminants considered in this study are limited to sheep and goats in the developing countries of the tropics and sub- tropics, which are kept for multiple purposes includingmilk, meat, fiber, leather and manure.
The world sheep population increasedfrom 1,043 million in 1972 to 1,131 million in 1981. The proportion of sheep in developing regions rose from 49% to 56% and sheep numbers in the developed regions actually declined during this period. The same trend is evident for goats. In 1972, 95% of the world's 392 million goats were in the de- veloping regions while by 1981 these regions had 96% of the world popu- lation of 469 million goats. In 1981, production of meat and milk from sheep was, respectively,6 million MT (45% from developing countries), and 7.9 MT (54% from developing countries). World production of goat meat was 2 million MT (93% from developingcountries) and world goat milk output was 7.6 million MT (74% from the developing countries). Offtake rates (% slaughteredof total population)for sheep were 42% in developed regions and 35% in developing regions in 1981. Comparable rates for goats were, respectively,61% and 37%. Sheep meat contributes 3.9% to total meat supplies in developed regions and 4.9% in the de- veloping regions. Comparable percentagesfor goat meat were 0.2% and 3.5%. Sheep milk contributed1.0% to total milk supplies in developed regions and 3.6% in developing regions. Comparable figures for goat milk were 0.6% and 4.6%. These figures for 1981 indicate the relative importanceof sheep and goats in developing regions of the world and the substantialdifferences in productivitybetween populationsin developed regions vs developing regions.
Sheep and goats in developing countries are generally an integral,but not dominant component of complex agriculturalsystems. Therefore,assessment of the current status of sheep and goats and de- velopment of recommendationsfor improvementstrategies must consider this role within larger and more complex production systems. Particular emphasis is placed on the role for sheep and goats in mixed herds grazing dry rangelandsand in small mixed-farm systems in medium to high rainfall areas.
Small ruminants, in common with other ruminants, can convert low quality fibrous feeds to high quality products. Moreover, certain characteristicsof sheep and goats bear special mention because of their relevance to agriculturaldevelopment efforts. Their small size, early - 2 -
maturity and low capital investment per head particularly suit them to the needs of limited resource producers. They often contribute needs of household for cash income and food, in small but timely amounts. They can range over wider areas, select a larger variety of plants, and repopulate faster than large ruminants after droughts. Their disadvantages, also related to their small size and grazing habits, include risk of theft and predation, low individual value rela- tive to cost of inputs, lack of capability for draft power, and poten- tial environmental degradation from uncontrolled grazing.
A recurring theme of the study is the lack of recognition of the current and potential role of small ruminants in many developing countries. This is manifested not only by a lack of support within de- veloping countries, but also within international donor and lending agencies. Some 80 research and(or) development projects in developing countries were analyzed on a regional basis. There has been consider- able attention given to mixed crop-animal systems but most of these efforts were directed towards larger scale commercial systems in more developed countries. Few projects had a primary emphasis on either re- search and training or on sheep and goats. The majority of resources were for projects in Eastern Europe and the more developed countries of South America and North Africa.
Major constraints--ecological, biological, policy, and socioeconomic--are usually interrelated through production system linkages. Thus, both general and specific recommendations focus on the need for, and requirement of, a balanced production system approach for research, training, and development programs. A combination of support activities are needed: regional and herd health programs, government assistance to research and extension programs, and formulation of favor- able credit, marketing, and pricing policies for small ruminants and their products.
1.2. Suumary of Recommendations
Recommendations were developed with emphasis on the following principal criteria:
o Sheep and goats in developing countries contribute primarily as an integral, but not dominant, component of production systems. Therefore, project and other activities should emphasize the systems approach, rather than treat sheep and goats as an independent commodity.
o Systems to be addressed should be those in which sheep and goats are currently of significant importance: - Mixed species herds grazing dry rangelands. - Small herds providing the primary source of food and income to landless peasants (e.g., India). - Small mixed farms in which sheep and goats add value to crop residues and serve as a food and cash reserve. Also included are those systems in which potential for a significant contribution by sheep and goats remains unrealized because of one or more missing elements, such as seasonal feed shortages, health problems, suitable genotypes, and profitable mar- kets. Examples include mixed farming systems in w'hich dual-purpose goats can produce milk for family consumption and slaughter animals for in- come, and stratified systems where range based breeding animals produce slaughter stock finished on better quality feeds for urban or export mar- kets.
o Projects must be economically and technically feasi- ble; however, in many instances, principal returns would be in social values (improved nutrition and health of family; insurance against food or cash shortages). Supporting policy analysis is also a high priority to identify further constraints on sheep and goat production and market development.
o Finally, recommendations emphasize activities suited to implementation by the World Bank or those which the World Bank may indirectly influence through Interna- tional Centers, national institutions, and national agricultural policy.
Specific Recommendations
1.2.1. Increase professional and institutional awareness of the cur- rent importance and potential value of sheep and goats to balanced agri- cultural production in developing countries:
o The identification and design stages of project devel- opment should incorporate specific assessment of sheep and goats.
o Review of government policy directly or indirectly influencing the small ruminant sub-sector and prelimi- nary assessment of overall impact of these policies on production, marketing, pricing, and product demand for small ruminants and their products.
o The portfolio of Bank projects, including rural devel- opment projects, should be reviewed with respect to sheep and goats, to identify opportunities, and to benefit from previous experiences.
o Development of comprehensive databases on biological and economic characteristics of sheep and goats should be supported. A file of technical personnel with interest and experience in sheep and goats should be compiled and regularly updated. The primary purpose of these data bases would be to organize available informationto support project de- sign and implementation.
1.2.2. There are major gaps in knowledge and technologynecessary to formulate successfuldevelopment plans. Results from research in de- veloped countriescan serve on a stopgap basis; however, research should be done with the types of animals under the environmentalconditions to which resultswill be applied. Biological research priorities include:
o Supply of adequate feed throughoutproduction year.
Develop cropping systems which meet animal feed re- quirements without reduction in food or cash crop yield, includingharvest and feed preservation strategiesto maximize nutritivevalue of crop resi- dues.
Identificationof crops which when intercroppedor rotated increase food crop yield as well as providing feed for animals.
Evaluation of seasonal differencesin types of range vegetation selected by sheep, goats, cattle and other ruminants to design optimum mix of species in grazing herds.
o Improve health.
Develop prevention/curefor major diseases affecting sheep and goats in tropics.
Develop herd health programs acceptable to producers (low cost, low labor).
o Improve genotype.
Characterizenative types of sheep and goats for pro- duction and fitness traits and determine the extent to which differencesare due to additive and nonadditive genetic effects.
Evaluate strategies for combining the superior traits of different breeds with particularattention to breeds which have evolved in the tropics.
Evaluate the apparent advantages and disadvantagesof sheep and goats vs cattle. - 5 -
Socioeconomic research priorities include:
o Production and marketing economics.
Evaluate the potential costs and benefits of biologi- cal and technical interventions to sheep and goat production.
Estimate current and potential demand for sheep and goat products at the local, national and export trade levels with consideration to competition from other animal products.
Evaluate the economic feasibility of developing market infrastructure to process and distribute sheep and goat products.
o Supporting policy research.
Conduct policy research to assess market-price rela- tionship, impact of price policy and impact of other government policies on the small ruminant sub-sector and devise policies which directly support sheep and goat development activities.
O Sociological factors.
Evaluate goals of producers and their attitudes toward acceptance of new technologies, their willingness to change traditional practices and to invest labor and capital in improvements to sheep and goat components.
Systems research priorities refer to the need for research to synthesize and evaluate comprehensive packages of technology and knowledge:
o Use of computer models to screen possible interven- tions for those most likely to work in the field.
o Test promising interventions under actual production conditions to ensure they fit the environment and producers needs.
Research priorities may be addressed through financial support to existing research centers, through loans to upgrade national research capabilities, and, in the case of socioeconomic and systems research priorities, by incorporating a research component within development projects to utilize data produced and to monitor progress.
1.2.3. Training is needed to acquaint decision makers with the potential for these species and to produce qualified professionals to carry out research, extension and development activities. Priorities for training activities are: -6-
o Shortcoursesin topics such as sheep and goat management in extensive and intensive systems, administrationof credit to producers,market development.
o Academic training of developing country nationals in both biological and socioeconomicdisciplines in which research program involves sheep and goat production and marketing.
Because research and developmentactivities should focus on sheep and goats as part of agriculturalsystems, training activitiesshould also incorporateinterdisciplinary approach. Workshops and shortcourses should be conducted in developing countries. Participantsshould in- clude producersas well as agriculturalprofessionals.
1.2.4. Developmentpriorities focus on sheep and goat improvement within the frameworkof agriculturalsystems or rural development projects,where sheep and goats are currently importantor where they have substantialpotential.
Production of improved sheep and goat seedstock. More emphasis should be placed on using superior stocks which have evolved under tropical conditions. In order to meet demand for superior adapted genotypes, centers to produce performancetested, disease-freestocks for export may be developed in selected tropical countries. Genetic merit is best evaluatedunder a common environment,perhaps a research station. However, final evaluationsshould be done under actual farm conditions. Cooperatingfarmers may also multiply proven seedstock for distributionto the target population of producers. Alternatively, government stationsmay supply superior rams/bucksto villages or producer groups on a sale or loan scheme.
Capital and credit assistance. Capital investmentsmust con- sider financialinputs for overall sector support, on-farm improvements and credit for animal purchases. Credit needs are production system specific with existing institutionsgenerally able to service ranch and commercial seedstockunits. Non-conventionalapproaches will be needed for transhumant/pastoralproducers and for smallholdersystems. Credit schemes must account for the fact that producers of sheep and goats are generallypoor with limited collateral;sheep and goats are easy to move and difficult to identify;and administrativecosts for small-scale schemes can be high. Particular considerationmust be given to existing schemes that have worked well in developing countriessuch as provision of breeding stock on shares or animal sharing schemes which make maximum use of local organizationaland social arrangements. 7-
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Study Terms of Reference, Background and Objectives
2.1.1. Terms of Reference
The following terms of reference for a study on the role of sheep and goats in agricultural development were provided to Winrock International at the commencement of the project:
1. To date the Bank and other development agencies have given very little priority or support to the development of im- proved sheep and goat production and marketing systems in developing countries.
2. It is estimated there are over one billion sheep and about 400 million goats in the world. Over 80% of the sheep are located in a few regions--Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, Oceania, Russia, China and a few countries in South America. There are relatively few sheep in tropical areas. Goats are widely distributed, especially in devel- oping countries.
3. Sheep and goats have a number of characteristics which offer considerable potential for increasing production of meat and milk and the incomes of smallholders in developing countries:
o the two species are adaptable to a wide range of envi- ronments; because of different grazing habits they are often complementary to each other and to cattle in uti- lizing range lands;
o they show a higher survival rate than cattle under drought conditions and because of higher reproductive rates, population can be restored more rapidly after drought;
o in many situations they may have higher biological effi- ciency than cattle in conversion of fodder to meat or milk;
o their short reproductive cycle and the high incidence of multiple births in many breeds are major advantages in some situations;
o their small size and early maturity makes them especial- ly suitable for use on small farms and for meeting sub- sistence needs for meat and milk; and
o there are no major religious taboos on consumption of sheep and goat meat and in many countries there is very strong demand for such meat. - 8 -
4. Despite these favorabletraits, the world population of sheep and goats since World War II has grown at a much slower rate than that of cattle. The major physical con- straints to increasedsheep and goat population and produc- tivity are their susceptibilityto certain respiratory diseases and internal parasites, especiallywhen they are kept in large flocks, and their susceptibilityto predators because of their small size.
5. Sheep and goats have received very little priority in the developmentplans and programs of developing countries and in some cases there has been opposition to them, especially goats. Because of this, very little attention has been given to research and extension in relation to problems of breeding, feeding,management and disease control. Also very little attention has been given to identificationof developmentopportunities.
6. In recent years there has been some evidence of increasing recognitionof the potential role of these species in agri- cultural developmentin developingcountries. USAID has sponsored a coordinatedworldwide program for research on small ruminants. The Bank is now actively considering projects or project components for small ruminants in a number of countries.
7. The Agriculturaland Rural DevelopmentDepartment is en- gaging Winrock Internationalto prepare a paper which will provide technical guidelines for operationalstaff on the potential role of sheep and goats in developing countries.
8. The paper should outline the present state of knowledge on sheep and goat productionwith special reference to the de- veloping countries. As specialist staff of the Bank are generally familiar with the systems of commercial produc- tion of wool and meat by sheep as practiced in Oceania, South America, and Europe the paper should concentrate principallyon the potential for productionin other situa- tions e.g., on small farms in the humid, sub-hemid and semi-arid areas, in certain highland areas, and under traditional,communal grazing systems.
9. The paper should outline the potentialproductivity of sheep and goats in these situationsand also the technical constraints to production. In this respect it should dis- cuss the characteristicsof the various breeds and also the problems of feeding, management,and disease control.
10. It should indicate topics on which specific research pro- grams need to be undertaken and it should also indicate the types of developmentprojects which could be undertaken in the short and medium term. - 9-
2.1.2. Backgroundto the Study
Fifty-six percent of the world's 1.1 billion sheep and 96% of the 469 million goats are in developing countries. They generally serve as a minor, but critical, component of balanced agriculturalproduction systems--especiallyin pastoral herds grazing arid rangelandsand on small mixed farms in higher rainfall areas. Wherever they are found, sheep and goats are producingmuch needed food and generating income, usually to the direct benefit of some of the world's poorest people.
Notwithstandingthese contributions,sheep and goats have re- ceived relativelylittle attention in the formulationof research, training,credit, and developmentprojects. There are several reasons why this has been so.
Relative to cattle, sheep and goats contribute only small fractions of the world's meat and milk production (% of world output for meat and milk, respectively,are: sheep, 4.3% and 1.7%; goats, 1.5% and 1.6%). Generally, cattle convey more status to their owners than sheep and goats, the "poor man's cow." Produce from sheep and goats is frequentlyconsumed by the family. Since this household consumption does not enter commercialmarket channels, its economic importance often escapes the notice of government and internationalagency decision makers. The most publicity received by sheep and goats has been about their undeserved reputation as degraders of-the environment.
This report does not dispute the relativelyminor role of sheep and goats at the world or even the national level. However, by focusing this study on the disadvantages of sheep and goats as well as their advantages and by emphasizing the objective analysis of the role of sheep and goats in those production systems of which they are an im- portant component, the study has as a major goal the identificationof situationswhere sheep and goats have unexploitedpotential. By analy- sis of constraintswhich prevent this potentialfrom being exploited, recommendationscan then be made for project opportunitiesto improve the productivityof sheep and goats through applied research, training and technicallyfeasible developmentprojects.
2.1.3. Study Objectives
The objectives are to analyze the general role of ruminant animals in the world food system and the unique role played by small ruminants,particularly in developing countries;describe specific characteristicsof sheep and goats, including their advantages and dis- advantages;analyze the technicaland socio-economicconstraints to in- creased productionby sheep and goats; and prescribemeasures for over- coming these constraints,particularly with respect to the potential role of the World Bank.
2.2. Agriculture
Agricultureis the primary and fundamentalpreoccupation of mankind. Food is a daily basic necessityrequired by every human - 10 -
being. In developed countries the percentage of the population directly employed on the land has declined sharply shifting economic and politi- cal power from rural to urban areas. In fact, however, the greatest strength of the developed countries is in their highly productive agri- culture.
In the developing countries,most of the population is di- rectly employed in agriculture. Here the spectre of severe food short- ages looms at the family and national levels. It is appropriate, there- fore, that international development agencies, be they of the national governments of developed nations, private banks, or voluntary organiza- tions, should place priority on improving agricultural productivity in the developing countries.
2.3. Animals
Animals play a critical role in balanced agricultural produc- tion systems by adding nutritional and economic value to feedstuffs and other agricultural resources. Several excellent reviews have documented this role from several perspectives: economic, nutritional, ecological, and sociological. They leave no doubt that animals will remain an im- portant, complementary component of agricultural production systems around the world (Byerly 1966, Ewing 1976, Hodgson 1971, McDowell 1979, Cunha 1982). In areas of surplus grain production, they are a way of marketing feed grains in the form of relatively expensive products to societies that can afford to pay the higher costs for meat, milk, and eggs. An additional payoff from consumption of animal products is that both organoleptic and the nutritional value of foods is enhanced. With some notable exceptions, the majority of people "like" animal products and as income rises more animal products are consumed. The quality of animal protein is also qualitatively superior to plant proteins.
The grain intensive animal industries are based upon the realities of the market place, not upon nutritional expediency. Farmers grow grain for profit, people prefer diets including animal products and will pay the cost. In the developed countries, people derive a third of their calories, two-thirds of their protein and approximately half of other nutrients from animal products (Van deMark et al., 1976). As long as people in developed nations retain this dietary preference, livestock producers can outbid the "hungry nations" for grain and the economic justification for feeding high concentrate diets to animals will remain. Nonruminants require these high concentrate diets; however, livestock industries involving ruminants may be justified on different grounds.
2.4. Runminants
Ruminants are a special class of herbivore, and occupy a unique and critically important niche in the food chain. Their con- tinued importance to mankind is unassailable because they bridge the gap between the vast resources of carbohydrate material naturally generated through photosynthesis but not directly useful for human consumption and the nutritional needs of mankind. By virtue of their unique symbiosis - 11 - Table 2.4.1. Ruminant Products Utilized by Peoplea
Classification Contribution Main sourcesb
Meat Food All ruminants
Milk Food Cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep, camel, yak
Fiber Wool Sheep, camelids Hair Goats, yak, sheep, camel
Skins Hides All ruminants Pelts Sheep, camelids
Inedible products Inedible fats Cattle, buffalo, sheep Horns, hooves, bones Cattle, buffalo Tankage Cattle, buffalo, sheep Endocrine extracts Cattle, sheep, goats
Traction Agriculture Cattle, buffalo, camel Cartage Cattle, buffalo, yak, camel Packing Camelid, yak, buffalo, cattle, reindeer Herding Buffalo, camel Irrigation pumping Buffalo, cattle, camel Threshing grains Cattle, buffalo, camel Passenger conveyance Buffalo, camel, yak, cattle
Waste Fertilizer Domestic ruminants Fuel (dung) Cattle, buffalo, yak, camelids, sheep, goats Methane gas Cattle, buffalo Construction (plaster) Cattle, buffalo Feed (recycled) Cattle
Storage Capital Domestic ruminants Grains Cattle, buffalo, sheep
Conservation Grazing All ruminants Seed distribution All ruminants Ecological Maintenance All ruminants Restoration All ruminants
Pest control Plants in waterways Buffalo Weeds Domestic ruminants Snails (paddies, canals) Buffalo
Cultural, including Exhibitions, rodeos Cattle, sheep, goat, buffalo recreation Sport fighting Cattle, buffalo, sheep Hunting Game ruminants Pet Goat, sheep, deer Racing, riding Buffalo, cattle, camel Religious Goat, buffalo, sheep, cattle Bride price Cattle, sheep, goat, camel
a Adapted from McDowell (1977) and Fitzhugh et al. (1978). b Species listed in order of importance, where identified. - 12 - with rumen microbes they convert resourcesunusable by man in their natural state into highly nutritious food. The rumen microbes also confer upon the ruminant independencefrom dietary requirementsfor essentialamino acids, water soluble vitamins or soluble carbohydrates. Instead the symbioticmicrobes can convert nonproteinnitrogen into the highest quality protein, synthesizeall their own water soluble vitamins, and can make use of cellulosicmaterials as a primary source of energy.
The case for ruminants has been well documented (e.g., Fitzhugh et al., 1978, McDowell 1974, Van Soest 1982). Table 2.4.1. lists the many uses to which man has put the ruminant animal. In a world that has only one-third of its surface above sea level, and in which only one-fifth of that is suitable for cultivation--therest being too dry, too hot, too high or too cold--thevalue of the ubiquitous ruminant is practicallyinestimable. In all of the dry, hot, wet, cold, and high environmentsof the world that man inhabits are to be found ruminants supplyingfood, fuel, power, clothing,and companionship.
Although the developedcountries have included ruminantsamong the animals that are fed surplus grains along with pigs and poultry, the notion that ruminantsare poor converters of high quality feeds and therefore should not be used in food productionsystems is entirely spurious. First, the vast majority of ruminants derive all or most of their diet from products unusable by man. Second,when ruminantsare fed small amounts of highly digestible carbohydratesthe "value added" to the base diet of fibrous feeds is enormous,making ruminants such as high producingdairy females among the most efficientmeans of producing animal protein. Third, ruminants do have a place in even the most sophisticatedcrop based agriculturalsystems because these systems generate by-productsor wastes in quantity which can be converted by rumen microbial fermentationinto products for human use. The value of skillful management of ruminant nutrition is exemplifiedby the simple fact that only one-third of the world's ruminantsare in the developed countriesbut they produce 65% of the world's meat and 80% of the world's milk.
While the importance of ruminantsin general has been well documented and is now becoming well understood by planners of food assistanceprograms, far less attention has been paid to the question of "which ruminant?" All the data availableclearly indicate the predomi- nant role of the large ruminants (cattle, buffalo, and camels) in sup- plying most of the meat and milk of ruminant animal origin. Small ruminantshave received less attention. However, it is now apparent that small ruminants,notably sheep and goats, possess numerous poten- tial advantageswhich apply in many of the agriculturalsystems of the developingworld.
2.5. Small Ruminants
Sheep and goats are the principal domesticatedsmall ruminants in terms of total numbers and production of food and fiber products. The genus Lama (includingalpaca, llama, guanaco and vicuna) is concen- - 13 - trated in the Andean region of South America and is locally important for productionof meat, fiber and, in the case of the llama, as a beast of burden. Undomesticatedsmall ruminants(including most deer, gazelle and antelope) are hunted for food and sport and are a major tourist attraction in many African countries. Anticipatedbenefits from organized systems of game cropping and ranching primarilyas a source of food from extensive rangelands of Africa are quite good; however, solutions to major problems of harvesting,processing, and marketing wild ruminantshave not as yet been found.
In this report attention will be focused on sheep and goats and their current and potential role in agriculturalproduction systems in developing countries. This role is primarilya function of their small size and correlated characteristics. Sheep and goats have certain advantages (and disadvantages)when compared to large ruminants, especiallyin the context of the specific characteristicsof agriculturalproduction systems. Criteria for classifyingproduction systems are discussed in section 3. Comparativeadvantages and disadvantagesof sheep and goats are described in section 4 along with considerationof genetic resources, types of products and levels of productivityof sheep and goats. Section 5 describes the principal biological and socioeconomicconstraints to sheep and goat production while section 6 develops the recommendationsbased on the earlier sections. Finally, section 7 reviews a number of projects dealing with animal agriculture. - 14 -
3. PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Sheep and goats make important contributions within a broad range of production systems. Classification of these systems often facilitates identification of constraints and development of strategies to improve productivity. Two types of classifications used in previous Winrock International studies are described with reference to sheep and goat production. A third classification, based primarily on mixed farming systems in developing countries, is also described.
3.1. Ecological Classification
In the study, "The Role of Sheep and Goats in Agricultural Development," production systems were described for four tropical ecotypes--desert shrub, woodland shrub, tropical savannah, and tropical forest (Winrock 1977). The climatic and other characteristics of these ecotypes (table 3.1.1.) strongly influence the role of small ruminants in the prevailing agriculture systems. For example amount and distribution of rainfall (along with population density) determines the relative extent of cropping activity, which in turn offsets the nature of available feed resources and type of management potential.
The following extracts from the earlier study are relevant to evaluation of sheep and goat production systems in the context of ecological factors.
3.1.1. Desert Shrub and Woodland Shrub Ranges
Desert shrub ranges generally receive less than 250 mm annual rainfall and are subject to extreme drought periods. Vegetation is sparse, although nutritious. Utilization is generally limited to periods of favorable moisture conditions and where livestock water is available. Vast areas of North africa and the Middle East, portions of East and southwest Africa, Southwest Asia, the Indian Subcontinent and large areas of Argentina and Mexico can be classified as desert shrub ranges.
Woodland shrub ranges vary from 150 to 750 mm annual precipitation. One of the woodland shrub subclasses is the sclerophyll vegetation surrounding the Mediterranean sea and the Chapparal areas of California and certain coastal areas of South America. The thorned forests or woodlands, generally adjacent to arid tropical savannahs, are another subclass of woodland shrub.
Most of the world's fat-tailed and fat-rumped sheep and ex- treme coarse-wooled sheep are found on desert shrub ranges. In addition, a major portion of the world's milk sheep and a large portion of the milk goats are found on these two range types. The importance of milk and milk products to the human diet is underscored by the fact that these societies have selected sheep and goats over the centuries for milk production. - 15 -
Table 3.1.1. World Distribution and Characteristics of Four Major Tropical Ecotypes
Range Principal Precipitation Temperature Range Type Locations Range (mm/year) Daily max./min.C° Soils
Desert North Mexico 0-250 Great diurnal Reddish desert soils, Shrub Peru & N. Chile Great irregularity variation often sandy or rocky North Africa Arabia Long dry season, up Max. 27-57 S. W. Asia up to several years Min. 2-24 Some saline soils East Africa in most severe S. W. Africa deserts Frosts rare Mediterranean 250-750 Terra rossa, noncalcic Wood- region Almost all rainfall Winter noncalcic red soils; land South America in cool season Max. 10-24 considerable variation Shrub Central Chile Min. 2-10 Summer very dry Summer Max. 18-41 Min. 13-27 Central America 250-1500 Considerable annual Some laterites; (Pacific coast) Warm season thunder- variation; no cold considerable Orinoco Basin storms period variety Brazil, S. of Rainy season Amazon Basin (high sun) Tropical N. Central Almost no rain in Max. 24-32 Savanna Africa cool season Min. 18-27 East Africa Dry season (low sun) S. Central Long dry period Max. 21-32 Africa Madagascar during low sun Min. 13-18 India Dry season (higher sun) S. E. Asia Max. 29-41 Min. 21-27 Central America 1200-10000 Little annual Mainly reddish (Atlantic coast) Equatorial type: variation laterites Amazon Basin frequent torrential Tropical Brazillian coast thunderstorms Forest West African Max. 29-35 Coast Congo Basin Min. 18-27 Malaysia Tradewind type: East Indies steady, almost No cold period Philippines daily rain Papua New Guinea N. E. Australia No dry period Pacific Islands
Adapted from Billings (1966). - 16 -
The dominant productionsystems are nomadic and transhumant. True nomadism is generally restricted to the pastoral societiesinhabiting the desert shrub ranges of Africa and Asia. Land use is dictated by available forage and livestock water. The nomadic way of life has often implied aimless wandering,which is clearly not the case. Although grazing time and intensity are variable on specific lands, established grazing routes and traditionalland use rights are generally followed by nomadic societies.
Nomadism as a way of life is declining in most regions. Increasingpressures from governmentsto establish settlements on government land are reducing nomadic grazing lands. Education and industrializationis attracting younger nomads to urban jobs. The consensus among planners and representativesof developmentinstitutions is that this transition is desirable; however, alternativeplans to optimize land use on desert shrub ranges better than through properly managed nomadism have yet to be implemented.
Animal offtake from nomadic flocks is quite low. In order to purchase basic necessities,nomads may sell wool, milk or milk products and some male animals. Females are usually retained to maintain herd sizes because of reproductiverates of 40 to 60 percent and death losses of 20 percent during severe droughts. Flocks with over 30 percent males are not uncom- mon.
Transhumance,defined as movement from a home base along spec- ified routes to other grazing areas and return, is the other principal system employed to utilize desert and woodland shrub range. Generally, the pattern is seasonal movement of animals into desert ranges during the rainy season and movement back into savannah and forest regions during the dry season. In much of West, Central and East Africa, this movement is as much to avoid the tsetse fly as it is to capitalizeon grazing lands use.
The other principal use of desert shrub ranges through trans- humance is for winter grazing areas with migration into higher elevationranges during summer months. Late gestation, par- turition and early lactation usually occur on the winter desert range.
3.1.2. Tropical Savannah Ranges
Savannahsare defined as having less than 40 percent tree overstoryand vary in amount of rainfall from 250 mm to 1500 mm. Such a wide variation in rainfall also results in wide variationsin vegetation and land use patterns. - 17 -
Close to one-third of the world's cattle are found on the savannah ranges of Africa, Asia and South America. Sheep and goats are more important in lower rainfall areas where browse is more abundant. In most of Africa and Asia, cattle herds on the savannah ranges almost always include flocks or herds of sheep and/or goats as followers. Sheep and goats on the tropical savannahs of South America (excludingthe Pampas of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil from the tropical savannah classification),serve primarily as domesticmeat supplies for ranch labor.
The savannah ranges generallyhave a rainy season of one to six months duration and the remainingmonths are dry. In some cases, long rainy seasons of two to four months will be followed by a shorter rainy season of one to two months in the opposite season (i.e., long rainy season in winter and spring with short rainy season in late summer or fall). Where rain- fall patterns and amount (over 700 mm), soil types and topo- graphy permit,most of the savannah ranges are being culti- vated. In fact, much of the range that is marginal in one or more of the above categories is being brought into cultiva- tion, with severe ecological damage the likely long-term re- sult. Cultivationof marginal savannah ranges is a major con- straint to livestock production in much of Africa, the Middle East and India. Rapidly expandinghuman populationsamong traditionalcultivator societiesis producing tremendous pressures in many countries to expand the land under cultiva- tion.
Nomadic production systems still exist in the more arid tropi- cal savannahsof Africa and Asia, although migration patterns and grazing rights are becoming more defined and government services such as education and water developmentare encourag- ing transition to transhumantor sedentaryproduction sys- tems. Most nomadic systems utilizing savannah ranges include migration into desert shrub zones when vegetationgrowth and livestockwater permit. Migration into the fringes of crop productionareas to utilize crop residues has been a tradi- tional part of their system, but this is becoming increasingly restricted. Sheep and goats are important livestock species with these nomads. These producersare generally receptive to programs that will improve their livestock (superiorbreeding stock, better grazing conditions,livestock water development, disease control) but are generallynot willing to accept any program that restricts their movement or livestocknumbers.
Vast areas of African and Asian tropical savannahsare uti- lized by transhumants. The Fulani tribe of West Africa is an example. Migration north and east into the tropical savannah and desert shrub regions occurs during the rainy seasons, with return to the Niger delta for crop residue grazing and even into the fringes of the tropical forest zones during the dry season. - 18 -
Many transhumant production systems include sheep and/or goats. As the difficulty of migration or the severity of grazing conditions increase, the numbers of sheep and goats relative to cattle increase. Sheep and goats adapted to this system can go longer periods without water and, thus, utilize range areas not available to other breeds and species.
Sedentary production systems are of primary importance to a significant portion of the world's savannah ranges. Most of the savannah ranges of South America are managed under large- scale ranch conditions. Large-scale tribal ranches or com- mercial ranch schemes are becoming increasingly important on African savannahs. The size of the ranch is generally depen- dent upon the amount of land necessary to provide year-round grazing and water for economically viable units. Cattle are the principal livestock species although sheep and goats are increasing in popularity (in some areas). As bush density in- creases, goats become increasingly important for utilization and control of brush.
Smallholder mixed crop-livestock production systems are be- coming more important in high potential savannah zones. In general, however, the potential importance of livestock is not recognized other than by the producers. The only livestock production system that has been widely accepted and emphasized in these areas in the past has been dairy cattle. At the same time, large numbers of sheep and goats may be seen in this area. Flock or herd sizes normally are two to ten animals, usually attended by young children or the elderly. These ani- mals complement crop production by grazing or utilizing crop interstices, roadsides, canals, lands too steep for cultiva- tion, crop residues, household and industrial wastes and other noncompetitive feed sources. The small ruminant clearly has a major role in smallholder production systems.
Goats and sheep normally are managed by smallholders as sec- ondary enterprises to crop production, similar to the system described for high potential savannahs. In India and South- east Asia, confinement systems with herds of 2 to 10 goats in cages or pens that are generally a part of or near the family home are not uncommon. Feedstuffs, such as coarse grasses, cassava leaves and other crop and tree leaves are cut and carried to the animals. Meat and/or milk are the primary products, with manure and hides as important by-products.
Research in Asia and West Africa indicates that sheep may have a complementary role in the production of plantation tree crops. Sheep are used for weed, grass and brush control while at the same time producing meat. Goats require more control, due to potential damage to the trees. - 19 -
3.1.3. Tropical Forest Ranges
Tropical forests generally have greater than 1200 mm annual rainfall and no prolonged dry season. Central America along the Atlantic coast, the Amazon Basin, the Congo Basin and large ereas of Southeast Asia typify this range type. Large areas ',ave been cleared and are used for crop production. Major Lropical forest areas of Africa with high potential for agriculture are not utilized due to tsetse fly infestation.
Plantation crops are important in tropical forest ranges. These include rubber, bananas, oil palm, plantain, coffee or tea. The "slash and burn" process is commonly used to clear crop lands. Two or three years of cropping without fertilizer and soil stabilizing crops are generally followed by severe erosion, reduced yields and eventual abandonment. Long-term damage to the ecosystem is the end result.
In those areas that have been cleared and developed for graz- ing, cattle production is generally favored. The major excep- tions would appear to be among smallholders along the fringes of metropolitan areas or in the fringes of the tsetse fly belt of Africa. Small herds of sheep and goats are quite common in these areas.
3.2. AgricultureUse Systems
Following a different approach, production systems were classified according to predominant agricultural activities within the system (Winrock 1982). This classification served as the basis for evaluating priorities and designing strategies for livestock improvement programs. Three basic types of systems were described:
o Animal Based--animal component is the major, often only, source of production (food, fiber, etc.) from system; ru- minants predominate because major source of food is graz- ing range or permanent pasture lands.
o Mixed Crop and Animal--animal component is an important, even essential, component of balanced production system; relative importance of crop and animal components varies widely among mixed systems in different regions.
o Crop Based--animal component plays a minor, complementary, but not essential role relative to cropping component; examples include weed control and utilization of crop processing by-products.
These classifications are not mutually exclusive by any means; examples of overlapping between animal based and mixed or crop based and mixed systems are common. Nine subclassifications were also identified. These subclassifications were specified on climate (primarily rainfall); predominant animal type (ruminants, nonruminants) and species - 20 -
(cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels; swine, poultry);and predominant type of crop. These subsystemsare describedhere for referencepur- poses; because they are the starting point for the additional specifica- tions used later in this section to classify productionsystems for small ruminants.
3.2.1. Animal Based
3.2.1.1. Pastoral migration of cattle, sheep, goats, and camels; in low rainfall areas--predominantlyin Africa and the Near East. Although the system in Africa is relatively unimportantin terms of the percentage of the agriculturalpopulation using the system (12 percent),it is very importantin terms of percent grazing land devoted to the system (35 percent) and percent of the total ruminant animal units associatedwith the system (35 percent). As would be expected, farmers using this system have very few nonruminants. In some areas of Africa, this system is linked with mixed farms (system 3.2.2.1.).
3.2.1.2. Pastoral sedentary, primarily cattle; in medium rainfall areas (1000 - 2000 mm)--predominantly in Latin America. While only 37 percent of the agricultural population is associated with the system, 70 percent of the grazing land and 74 percent of the ruminantsin Latin America are associatedwith this production system. The system, which includes few nonrumi- nants, has two basic subtypes: Subtype 1: Extensive grazing, primarily to produce meat on large ranches. Subtype 2: Intensive grazing to produce both milk and meat (dual purpose) on small and medium-sizefarms.
3.2.2 Mixed Crop and Animal
3.2.2.1. Mixed farms with cattle, sheep, and goats; millet and sorghum; in low rainfall areas (500 - 1000 mm)--predominantly in Africa, but also a few areas of Central America. The system sometimes includes chickens, but seldom includes pigs. (This is true in non-Moslem areas in Africa, as well as in the Near East). This system is often linked with migratory grazing systems (system 3.2.1.1.) in Africa.
3.2.2.2. Mixed farms with camels, cattle, sheep, and goats; wheat and clover; in medium rainfall areas or in low rainfall, irrigated areas; predominantlyin the Near East. Camels are used for draft as well as for milk and meat in this system. Chickens are also included and pigs only in non-Moslemareas (such as Lebanon).
3.2.2.3. Mixed farms vith cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and chickens; in areas with enough rainfall (medium to high) to support a highly diverse mixture of ruminants and non-ruminants and different crops; major in all areas except the Middle East. Maize and/or wheat are dominant crops in this system. In - 21 -
Africa and Latin America, maize is the dominant crop, but in South Asia (for example, India and Pakistan)wheat is dominant.
3.2.2.4. mixed farms with buffalo and cattle; rice or roots and tubers; in high rainfall areas--predominantlyin Asia (more than 50 percent of the agriculturalpopulation and ruminant animal units in Asia are associatedwith the system) and in both Africa and Latin America. Pigs and chickens are often included;small ruminants are sometimesimportant. Large ruminants often used for draft.
3.2.3. Crop-basedFarms
This system could be subdivided into many different subtypes. The animals tend to be used for draft power, manure production,and holding of assets. In Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the system includes few ruminants. However, in the Near East (primarilyEgypt) 24 per cent of the ruminant animal units and 1 percent of the grazing land are found in this category, indicating the importanceof crop-residueas a feed source.
These basic subtypes of crop-based farms with which small ruminants may be associated include:
3.2.3.1. Large scale plantation crops (coconuts,sisal, etc.) in which small ruminants harvest weeds and clear undesirableplants growing among plantation crops.
3.2.3.2. Specializedcash crop commercial farms and associated agroin- dustry (e.g., canning plants) which yield substantialamounts of crop residues and processingby-products fed to livestock.
3.2.3.3. Small scale farms primarily producing food crops for family use in which livestock (often a backyard enterprise)are a source of small amounts of family food (e.g., milk, eggs) and/or income. This subtype differs from the previously de- scribed mixed farms primarily in the distinctlyminor role of livestock in the system.
3.3. Small Ruminants in Mixed Farming Systems
Attention to improving the role of livestock,including small ruminants, in developingregion farming systems has increasedin recent years (McDowell and Hildebrand 1980, Fitzhugh et al., 1982). In many developing countrieswhere mixed farming is important, a significant proportion--oftenthe majority--ofsmall ruminantsare found on small farms (table 3.3.1.). Generally, the proportion of national populations found in small farms is greater for goats than for sheep, perhaps because wooled sheep are more often found in relatively large pastoral flocks. - 22 -
Table 3.3.1. Proportion of National Populations of Sheep and Goats Found on Small Farms (<5 ha), %
Developed Goats Sheep Developing Goats Sheep
North America Middle America-Tropical Canada - 2 El Salvador 67 20 United States 1 1 Jamaica 82 61 Mexico 62 51 West Europe St. Lucia 71 73 Austria 64 6 Virgin Islands 30 8 Belgium 64 52 Finland - 18 South America-Tropical Italy 35 22 Brazil 26 4 Luxembourg - 41 Ecuador 53 64 Malta 85 83 Peru 74 53 Netherlands 22 8 Suriname 68 56 Norway 48 44 Venezuela 56 46 Portugal 50 - Venezuela 56 46 Spain 35 23 Sweden - 14 South American-Temperate Switzerland 57 50 Uruguay - 0.1 United Kingdom - 2 West Germany - 18 North Africa, Mid East Algeria 53 44 East Europe Bahrain 33 43 Czechoslovakia 98 32 Iraq 38 28 Hungary 39 5 Pakistan 67 59 Poland - 26 Saudi Arabia 74 60 Yugoslavia 74 45 Central & Southern Africa Oceania Lesotho 87 81 Australia - - Reunion 94 - Sierra Leone 96 83 Swaziland 80 73
South & Southeast Asia Guam 47 - Korea 97 72 Pacific Islands 42 - Sri Lanka 91 71
Source: 1970 World Census of Agriculture, FAO, 1973. - 23 -
The role of small ruminants is generally as a minor, but complementary, component of small farm systems. Complementary interactions between small ruminants and other cropping activities include (Hart et al., 1982):
o Adding value to crop residue by conversion to preferred animal products.
o Production of manure used to fertilize crop areas.
O Adding value to forage crops planted in rotation with food crops primarily to increase soil fertility and control plant disease.
While these complementary interactions also exist for other ruminants in mixed systems, the small size of sheep and goats often better fits the limited resource base of small farms.
Small farm systems in Asia, Africa, and Latin America involving animals were identified by participants in the Bellagio Conference, "Integrated Crop and Animal Production: Making the Most of Resources Available to Small Farms in Developing Countries," (McDowell and Hildebrand 1980). A listing of those small farm systems in which sheep and/or goats play a significant role is given in table 3.3.2.
Information presented on these systems was necessarily cryptic. However, it does appear that sheep and goats are often present and make significant contributions to small farm systems in developing countries. Of the ten major farming systems in Asia involving substantive crop and animal components, seven included small ruminants; of the ten systems identified in Africa, eight included small ruminants. In Latin America-Caribbean, four major systems involving crop and animal components were identified. Three of these involved medium to large (primarily commercial) farms on which cattle and, sometimes, swine were the major animals. But in the remaining type system (primarily small limited resource farms) small ruminants were identified as important animal components.
Because classifications for the three geographical zones were done by three separate panels, some differences in approach and perspective resulted. For example, the Asia and Africa group limited their consideration to small farms, whereas the Latin America group considered both large and small scale farming systems. It is interesting and perhaps significant that sheep and goats were listed for the majority of farming systems in Asia and Africa (all small, limited resource types) but only for the small, limited resource systems in Latin American farming systems. Once again, it appears that sheep and goats in developing regions are primarily in the hands of the poor agriculturists. - 24 -
Table 3.3.2. Developing Regions Small Farm Systems in Which Small Ruminants are Important
Farming system Major crops Major animals Locations Feed sources
Asia
Coastal fishing and Coconuts, cassava, Cattle and goats Sri Lanka Pastured with farming complexes, cacao, rice Philippines coconuts livestock relatively Malaysia important Indonesia
Highland vegetables Vegetables, rice, Sheep, goats Indonesia Crop residues, and mixed cropping sugarcane, sweet rice bran, cut (intensive), live- potatoes, Irish forage, sugarcane stock important potatoes tops
Upland crops of Maize, cassava, Cattle, buffalo, India Bran, oilseed semiarid tropics, sorghum, kenaf, goats, sheep, Thailand cake, straw, livestock important wheat, millet, poultry, swine stovers, vines, pulses, oilseeds, hulls, hay peanuts, etc.
Multistory Coconuts, cassava, Cattle, goats, Philippines Cut and carry (perennial mixtures), bananas, mangoes, sheep India feeds from livestock some coffee croplands importance
Tree crops (mixed Orchard, trees, Cattle, goats, Philippines Grazing or cut orchard and rubber), rubber, oil palm swine Malaysia and carry livestock some Thailand importance
Swidden, livestock Maize, rice, beans, Swine, poultry, All Animals scavenge important peanuts, vegetables goats, sheep
Animal-based Fodder crops Cattle, buffalo, Indonesia Cut and carry goats, sheep Malaysia fodder, crop India residue
Africa
Pastoral herding Vegetables Cattle, goats, Savanna Natural range- animals very (compound)+ sheep (Southern lands, tree forage important Guinea)
Millet, vegetables Cattle, goats, Savanna Natural range- sheep (Northern lands, tree Guinea and forage, crop Sahel) residues - 25 -
Table 3.3.2. (con't)
Farming system Major crops Major animals Locations Feed sources
Africa (con't)
Bush fallow Rice/Yams/Plantains Goats, sheep Humid Fallow, crop shLifting cultivation, maize, cassava, vege- tropics residues arLimals not very tables, tree crops, imiportant soybeans, yams
Sorghum/Millet Cattle, goats, Transition Fallow, straws, maize, sesame, soy- sheep, poultry, forest/ stover, vines, beans, cassava, horses savanna cull roots, sugarcane, tree Southern sesame cake crops, cowpeas, Guinea, vegetables, yams Northern Guinea & Sahel
Rudimentary seden- Rice/Yams/Plantains Goats, sheep, Humid Rice bran, cull tary agriculture, maize, cassava, vege- poultry, swine tropics roots, straws, shifting cultiva- tables, tree crops, crop residues, tion, animals cocoyams vines, stover important
Sorghum/Millet Cattle, goats, Transition Stover, vines, maize, sesame, sheep, poultry forest/ sugarcane tops, cotton, sugarcane, savanna cull roots, or tree crops, cowpeas, Savanna tubers, tree yams, tobacco, ground- (Guinea forage, groundnut nuts, vegetables & Sahel) cake, brans
Compound farming Rice/Yams/Plantains Goats, sheep, Humid Rice straw, rice and intensive maize, cassava, vege- swine, poultry tropics bran, vegetable subsistence agri- tables, tree crops, waste, fallow, culture, shifting cocoyams, yams vines, cull cultivation, ani- tubers or roots, mals important stover, tree-crop by-products, palm oil cake
Vegetables Goats, sheep, Transition Vines, stover, sugarcane, tobacco, poultry, swine forest/ tree-crop by- sesame, maize, tree savanna products, ground- crops, groundnuts nut cake
ELighland agriculture, Rice/Yams/Plantains Goats, sheep, Humid Fallow, leaves, animals important maize, cassava, vege- poultry, swine tropics stover, rice by- tables, plantain, products, cull cocoyams tubers, cassava leaves, vegetable residues - 26 -
Table 3.3.2. (con't)
Farming system Major crops Major animals Locations Feed sources
Africa (con't) Sorghum Cattle, goats, Transition Stover, vines, soybeans, cowpeas, sheep, poultry forest/ groundnut cake cassava, maize, savanna millet, groundnuts
Millet/Sorghum Cattle, goats, Savanna Crop residues, maize, groundnuts, sheep, poultry, (Guinea some oil cake, cowpeas, sesame, horses, donkeys & Sahel) brans, stover, tobacco, cotton, vines, cull vegetables, cassava, tubers yams
Flood land and Rice/Yams/Plantains Goats, poultry Humid Crop residues, valley bottom maize, vegetables, tropics vines, grazing agriculture, sugarcane, rice, animals of some yams, cocoyams, importance millet, groundnuts
Rice Cattle, goats, Transition Straw, stover, vegetables, maize, sheep, poultry, forest/ molasses, brans, millet, groundnuts, swine, horses, savanna groundnut cake plantain, sugarcane, donkeys cocoyams
Yams/Sugarcane Cattle, goats, Savanna Vines, brans, cull maize, cowpeas, sheep, poultry, (Guinea tubers, molasses, cocoyams, groundnuts, swine, horses, & Sahel) sugarcane tops vegetables, plan- donkeys tains, rice, yams
Mixed farming, Sorghum/Millet Cattle, goats, Savanna Stover, vines, farm size variable, groundnuts, cotton, sheep, poultry, (Guinea fallow animals important tobacco, maize, cow- horses, donkeys, & Sahel) peas, vegetables camels
Plantation crops, Cacao Goats, sheep, Humid Grazing or cut compound farms, vegetables, maize, poultry, swine tropics and carry, stover etc., animals of plantains some importance
Tree crops Goats, sheep, Transition Grazing or cut sugarcane, plantains poultry, swine forest/ and carry, savanna sugarcane tops - 27 -
Table 3.3.2. (con't)
Farming system Major crops Major animals Locations Feed sources
Latin America - Caribbean
Mixed cropping Rice, maize, sorghum, Cattle, poultry, All Natural pastures, Small size in beans, wheat, cacao, goats, sheep, crop residues, settled areas plantains, coffee, donkeys, horses, cut feed Medium size in tobacco mules, swine frontier areas Subsistence or monetized economy Livestock relatively important
Source: McDowell and Hildebrand (1980). - 28 -
4. SEEP AND GOATS
The practicallyuniversal distributionof sheep and goats attests to their abilities to adapt to a wide range of conditions. As ruminants they share the advantage of efficientlyutilizing fibrous feeds; however, it is their special characteristicswhich have estab- lished their important role in supplying highly desired food and fiber.
4.1. Characteristics- Advantages and Disadvantages
4.1.1. Small size. Sheep and goats are small, ranging in mature weight from 15 to 75 kg. This small size is directly associatedwith other important traits such as earliness of maturing, quantity of pro- duct (meat, milk, fleece), and nutrient requirementsfor maintenance. These size related characteristicscan be advantageousin some circum- stances and disadvantageousin others.
Earliness of sexual maturity leads to shorter generation in- tervals, and thus increases potential response to selection over fixed time. Sheep and goats reach market weight and conditionand start lactating often within their birth year and certainlymonths, if not years, younger than cattle and buffalo.
Lower per head nutrient requirementsmean that sheep and goats may fit the limited resources of small farms or marginal grazing lands which cannot sustain larger ruminants throughout the production cycle.
Lower capital costs per head and potentiallymore rapid cash flow make sheep and goats less risky investmentsand more likely to be affordable by poor producers. Consequently,the economic impact of losses is less for sheep and goats than for cattle.
Small size is associatedwith small yields of meat per head slaughteredand milk per lactating female. These small quantities are often well suited to the daily needs of subsistencefamiles with limited ability to preserve surplus food products.
Small size generallymakes sheep and goats easier to handle, especially by women and children. Housing and pens require simpler, less robust construction,dipping in barrels rather than vats is possi- ble. On the negative side, small animals are more susceptibleto predators,including theft. Small per head product yields are a dis- advantage under commercial conditions,especially when labor costs are relativelyhigh. For example, breakeven prices for goat's milk are ap- proximatelydouble that for cow's milk in the U.S., primarilybecause of low yield per labor input (Yazman 1979).
4.1.2. Reproductiveefficiency. Short gestation intervals (150 days) and lactationperiods (60 days when suckling only) combined with the general lack of photoperiodanestrus in tropical latitudes make two par- turitions per year biologicallyfeasible, although management for three parturitionsin two years is a more practical goal (Valenciaand Gon- - 29 - zalez Padilla 1983). These 8 to 9 month parturitionintervals often better fit the seasonal rainfall patterns in many regions than the 14 to 16 month (or greater) parturitionintervals of cattle and buffalo. Thus, females may conceive in one period of good feed and lactate in the next.
A number of highly prolific sheep breeds have been described in recent publications(Mason 1980; Fitzhugh and Bradford 1983). These include:
Developed regions: Europe--FinnishLandrace, Romanov, Chios; USSR--Svanka;Oceania--Booroola Merino Developing regions: Caribbean--BarbadosBlackbelly, Virgin Island White; North Africa-MidEast--D'Man, Omani; China--Huyang,Hanyang; SoutheastAsia--Priangan.
Prolific breeds generally produce twins and triplets and quadrupletsare not uncommon. Prolific breeds of goats have not been highlighted;how- ever, in general goats are more prolific than most sheep (Gall 1981).
The advantagesof multiple births to increasedmeat offtake and increased selectionpotential are realized only if the neonates live and their mothers produce sufficientmilk to raise them to weaning. Under limited feed conditions,multiple births can actually be a disad- vantage reducing productivityby stressing the breeding female and re- ducing her productive lifetime.
The reproductiveefficiency of sheep and goats favorably im- pacts on the ability to rapidly build herd numbers in response to favor- able prices or feed surpluses (Dahl and Hjort 1976). Jahnke (1982) gives estimates of herd growth rates in Africa followingthe Sahelian drought of the early 1970s in table 4.1.2.1.
Table 4.1.2.1. Growth Rates of Animal Numbers in Tropical Africa (% per annum)
1969-71/1979 1974/79 1978/79
Camels 0.8 5.4 1.4 Cattle 1.2 2.8 2.1 Sheep 1.6 4.9 1.4 Goats 1.2 4.3 1.6
Source: Jahnke (1982).
The recovery and restocking period of 1974-1979clearly indi- cates the rapid growth potential of sheep and goat herds relative to cattle herds; whereas the 1978/79 period representsmore normal long- term herd growth rates. - 30 -
4.1.3. Feeding behavior. Sheep and goat are more selective feeders than cattle, tending to select the better quality portions of plants. Mouth size and shape facilitate this selectivity. While both cattle and sheep are grazers, goats are browsers and utilize a broader range of plant species than either sheep or cattle (Demment and Van Soest 1982). The preferredbrowsing strategy of goats is especially advantageous under dry range conditions in which the survivingvegetation tends to be on deep rooted shrubs and bushes.
Sheep and goats are complementaryin their feeding strategies to each other and to cattle in mixed herds of ruminants. They therefore contribute a flexibilitywhich is of time-honoredvalue to the pastoral- ists of the world. They include sheep and goats in their herds as a hedge against disease or disaster, as a tool to trade, a reserve of ready cash, an easily expandable bank account and as a source of readily obtained food and fiber.
Sheep and, especially,goats are more agile and thus are able to feed over much rougher terrain than cattle. This agility combined with an ability to travel further without water can greatly increase their feeding range.
Examples of land degradationblamed on sheep and goats are in- variably attributableto negligence and mismanagementon the part of man. Sheep and goats, contrary to many misconceptions,are capable of stabilizingor regeneratingland subject to erosion. In Indonesia sheep are grazed on pasture sown to stabilize steep slopes that had been denuded of forest and cropped to their summit. The offtake from such projects has been greater than from cropping. Likewise goats have been used to control brush and rehabilitaterangelands overtaken by noxious shrubs (Ewing 1976). Trypanosomiasisresistant goats have been used to clear the low bush which is a favored habitat of the tsetse fly in Africa.
4.1.4. Feed utilizationefficiency. A combinationof physical and physiologicalfactors interact to determine efficiency of feed utilization. Factors listed by Van Soest (1982) include type of diet selected, time spent feeding, feeding behavior, rate and extent of rumination,anatomy of reticulo-rumen,capacity of rumen relative to body size, and digestiveability (especiallyfiber). Claims made in favor of the comparativeefficiency of one class of ruminantsmust be evaluated in terms of the type of diet offered, maturity of experimental animals and other conditions (McDowelland Woodward 1982). Van Soest (1982) generalizedthat larger ruminants tend to better digest high fiber diets than smaller ruminants, especially browsers. An experimentalcomparison (Huston 1978) on high fiber, low quality diets ranked cattle, sheep, goats, and deer in decreasingorder of digestive ability. On the other hand, the practical ability of goats to thrive on poor quality bushy rangelands is well documented (McCammonFeldman et al., 1982). Also, goats have relatively greater rumen capacity compared to body size. Although experimentalevidence documentingdifferences among species in efficiency are limited, it does seem clear that comparativeadvantage will vary with specific productionconditions (McDowelland Woodward 1982). - 31 -
Since ruminants are relatively independent of dietary protein quality (although not of dietary nitrogen intake) the primary nutri- tional constraint is metabolisable energy. Efficiency of protein pro- duction can therefore be most usefully estimated on the basis of dietary intake of metabolisable energy. Calculations have been made for both the developed and developing countries (Fitzhugh 1981). The results in table 4.1.4.1 illustrate two important points:
- Milk protein production is a more efficient biological process compared to meat production.
- Higher yielding animals (in developed regions), while requiring more feed, are also more efficient.
While developed country farmers enjoy the benefits of rela- tively abundant high quality feeds from either the primary or by- products of crop production most of the small producers in the developing world do not share this abundance. In the dryer areas, they are constrained by the highly variable productivity of rangelands along with increasing inroads from cropping. In the higher rainfall, more intensive agricultural areas, they are often unable to effectively utilize crop by-products.
4.1.5. Fitness. As in the case of reproductive traits discussed earlier, the fitness advantages conferred by specific characteristics largely depend on the production environment. For example, the browsing behavior of goats reduces their exposure to endoparasites but, when heavily stocked on grass, goats seem more prone to heavy infestation than cattle.
With respect to specific diseases, sheep and goats appear to be less susceptible to foot and mouth disease and trypanosomiasis than cattle (ILCA 1979a). However, they are subject to serious losses from internal parasites and such diseases as mycoplasmosis, bluetongue, pasteurellosis, peste des petits ruminants (PPR), and scrapie. Diseases which appear to affect goats more than sheep include caprine arthritis encephalitis (CAE), brucellosis (B. melitensis), and caseous lymphadenitis (Thedford 1983a,b).
A special problem with respect to health problems of sheep and goats is that their relatively low value per head is a disincentive to producer expenditures on prevention and treatment. Similarly, public and private investments in study of diseases and development of therapeutics for small ruminants has lagged behind that for cattle.
Adaptive characteristics of sheep and goats, especially compared to cattle, include their coat type consisting of coarse hair over an undercoat of finer fibers. In cold regions (or where night
e* - 32 -
temperaturesare substantiallylower than daytime temperature),this coat type provides good insulation. In the hotter, and especially humid, regions, the undercoat has been lost.
Rate of water turnover measured for animals grazing under same conditions suggests that goats are second only to camels in this importantadaptation to arid range environments(table 4.1.5.1).
Table 4.1.4.1. Comparisonof Efficiency of Food Protein Production From Sheep and Goats in Developedand Developing Regions
Developed Developing regions regions World
Sheep Feed energy, Mcala 710 602 655 Protein, g 929 700 818 Meat (627) (347) (491) Milk (302) (353) (327) Efficiency,g/Mcalc 1.31 1.16 1.25
Goats Feed energg, Mcala 645 455 465 Protein, g 3282 695 808 Meat (485) (322) (325) Milk (2797) (373) (483) Efficiency,g/Mcalc 5.09 1.53 1.74 a Annual average per head requirementsof metabolizableenergy (Fitzhugh et al., 1978). b Annual net protein value of meat and milk yield per head for sheep and goat populationsin 1972 (FAO 1978); estimatedas 89 g/kg sheep and goat carcass weight, 48 g/kg sheep milk, 28 g/kg goat milk. c Protein/feedenergy. Source: Fitzhugh (1981).
Table 4.1.5.1. Daily Water Turnover Among Animals Grazing Together, (Mf- 8 2 ) Species Spring Fall
Goats 230 167 Sheep 554 271 Donkeys 245 205 Cattle 591 362 Camel 143 114
Source: MacFarlane (1982). - 33 -
4.1.6. Socioeconomic. Sheep and goat meat are free from religious taboos such as those against consumptionof beef by Hindus and pork by Moslems.
Small ruminants serve important functionsrelated to the accu- mulation and exchange of capital assets. In remote areas, livestock or livestock products are often easier to transport long distances over rough terrain than are crop products. The product (wool, meat, mohair, cashmere) can be transportedon the animal until the herd/flocksare driven to the point of collection.
In arid areas of the west African Sahel, cattle and goats are often raised in mixed herds. Goats survive drought better than cattle. After years in which cattle numbers have been reduced due to severe drought, herders use goats to rebuild their capital stock--eventually converting goats to cattle (Josserand and Ariza-Nino 1982, Jahnke 1982). Small ruminants are widely used by small farmers to build and store wealth until cash is needed to meet an emergency (Dahl and Hiort 1976). Referencesto small ruminants as a "living bank" are often used to describe this function (Sabrani and Knipscheer 1982, Singh 1982). The cash value of small ruminants is often more appropriateto the im- mediate cash requirement(e.g., school fees) than the more valuable cat- tle.
4.2. Genetic Resources
Goats and sheep are thought to have been the first ruminants domesticated,probably in southwesternAsia before 7500 B.C. Goats be- long to the genus, Capra; sheep to the genus, Ovis; both within the tribe Caprini of the family Bovidae. Over the milennia, sheep and goats have been carried by man throughout the world (Terrill 1979). Both natural and artificial selection have yielded breeds and types which vary greatly in appearance and performance. This considerable heterogeneityprovides a useful pool of genetic resources to be tapped to meet productionrequirements under the widely varying environmental, managerial, and market conditions in developing regions.
Definite opportunitiesexist for mixing and matching these genotypic resources to fit production conditions and product demand. Short generation intervals,often less than 24 months, and frequent multiple births combine to favor rapid genetic progress through selection. Heterogeneityamong breed types resultingfrom generations of genetic isolation of these breeds suggests substantialhybrid vigor may result from crossbreedingand in new "synthetics"established from multibreed combinations.
4.2.1. Breed Types
Mason (1969) identified the major breeds and types of sheep and goats and classified these according to purpose (meat, milk, fiber, pelts) and in the case of sheep other characteristicssuch as coat and tail types. These breed types are listed alphabeticallyin Appendix tables 1 and 2 and summarized by region, purpose and type in tables 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, and 4.2.1.3. - 34 -
The majority of the major goat breeds originated or are prin- cipally found in developing regions. Of the 75 breeds listed, 22 origi- nated in North Africa-Mid East, 10 in India, and 24 in Europe. Forty- three of the goat breeds are kept primarily for milk production and another 10 are milked as a secondary purpose. Eleven are kept primarily for fiber production with another 8 producing fiber as a secondary pur- pose. Twenty-one breeds were classified as primarily meat production; these include the large populations of native meat types such as the
Table 4.2.1.1. Summary of Goat Breeds and Types by Region and Principal Purposea
Region Meat Milk Fleece Total
North America - Middle America-Tropical 1 - - 1 South America-Tropical - - -- South America-Temperate - - -- West Europe 1 23 24 East Europe - 1 - 1 USSR - 3 3 6 North Africa-Mid East 6 11 5 22 Central & Southern Africa 6 1 - 7 India 2 5 3 10 China, Mongolia 1 - - 1 South & Southeast Asia 2 - - 2 Oceania - - _ _
Total 19 44 11 74 a Summarized from Appendix Table 1.
Table 4.2.1.2. Summary of Sheep Breeds and Types by Region and Principal Purposea
Region Meat Milk Wool Pelt Total
North America 1 - 7 - 8 Middle America-Tropical 2 - - - 2 South America-Tropical 2 - - - 2 South America-Temperate - - 1 - 1 West Europe 52 25 57 - 134 East Europe 13 15 15 - 43 USSR 30 - 24 6 60 North Africa-Mid East 19 5 22 - 46 Central & Southern Africa 10 - 2 - 12 India 2 - 10 - 13 China, Mongolia 1 - 6 1 8 South & Southeast Asia 1 - - - 1 Oceania - - 4 - 4
Total 133 45 148 7 333 a Summarized from Appendix Table 2. - 35 -
Table 4.2.1.3. Number of Sheep Breeds Classified by Coat, Tail Type and Region
Coat Type Tail Type Region H FW MW CW Fur Total ST MT LT FR LFT SFT FT Total
I - 2 4 2 - 8 - 7 1 8 2 2 2 - 2 - - - - - 2 3 2 2 - 2 - - - - 2 4 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 5 1 9 79 45 -134 7 122 2 - 2 1 - 134 6 - 5 7 31 - 43 2 36 5 - - - - 43 7 - 16 14 26 4 60 2 27 7 8 4 3 9 60 8 3 - 3 40 - 46 5 14 3 1 2 4 17 46 9 10 1 - 1 - 12 - 6 1 2 1 1 1 12 10 2 - - 10 - 12 5 6 - - - - 1 12 11 - 1 1 6 - 8 2 1 - - - 2 3 8 12 - - - 1 - 1 I ------1 13 - 1 3 - 4 - 4 - - 4
Total 20 36 111 162 4 333 24 228 18 11 9 11 32 333
Coat Type: H - hair; FW - fine wool; MW - medium wool; CW - coarse wool.
Tail Type: ST - short-tailed; MT - medium length, think tail; LT - thin tail; FR - fat-rumped; LFT - long fat tail; SFT - short fat tail; FT - fat-tailed.
Summarized from Appendix Table 2. - 36 -
Criollo (Spanish)of Latin America, the West African Dwarf, the Small East African, the Indian Bengal, the SoutheastAsian Katjang, and the Chinese Ma.
In contrast, the majority (248) of the 333 sheep breeds and types originated in developedregions, primarilyEurope. Most of these were developedfor wool or for wool and mutton production;although some breeds such as the Chios, Lacaune, and East Fresian are primarily dairy types. This listing from Mason (1969) does include some of the major African hair sheep including the fat-rumped Somali (and the similar Blackhead Persian), the Masai, and the West African Dwarf (more generally known as the Forest or Djallonke). Although less numerous, breeds of hair sheep in the Western Hemisphere, such as the Barbados Blackbelly,Virgin Island White, Pelibuey (or Pelo do Boi in Brazil) and West African, are well adapted to subhumid tropical conditions (Fitzhugh and Bradford 1983).
4.2.2. Genetic ImprovementStrategies
Strategies to improve productivityand efficiency of sheep and goats should be developed in terms of the production environmentand projectedmarket requirements(consumer preferences as well as quantity). Available tools include the traditionalselection and mating plans and the new technologiesincluding artificial inseminationand embryo transfer.
Decisionsmust be made in regard to the relative technicaland economic feasibilityof changing the genotype vs changing the environment. For example, disease may be an overridingconstraint. Which will be best: developing preventativesand/or treatments or genetic improvementof resistance? The decision will be influencedby current availabilityof technology,projected cost (and probability)of developingnew technologies,feasibility of delivering technology to production areas, and levels of genetic variation in resistance among availableanimal resources.
A first step in any genetic improvementprogram is characterizationof animal populations for the multiple traits which cumulativelydetermine productivityand efficiency (table 4.2.2.1). These traits are expressedby individual animals, but it is the herd, not the individual,which is the economic unit of concern.
Assessment of herd productivityand efficiencyare facilitated by the developmentof indexes (ILCA 1979a, Fitzhugh and Bradford 1983). An example of the-use of indexes to compare the productivityof breeds is given in table 4.2.2.2. The Flock ProductivityIndex (FPI) was calculatedas
FPI = (litter size x lamb survival x birth weight)/lambing interval and the Efficiency Index (FEI) as FEI = FPI/(adult ewe wt)875. - 37 -
Table 4.2.2.1. Important Traits for Sheep and Goat Productionin DevelopingCountries
Category Traits
Fitness Adaptations to environmentalstress - coat type, resistance to disease and parasites,neonatal survival, longevity, temperament Adaptabilityto environmentalchange
Fertility Prolificacy- ovulation rate, fertilizationrate, embryo survival Parturitioninterval - postpartum interval to conception (postpartumanestrus, conception rate), gestation period Weaning rate - maternal behavior,milk production, vigor of young Age at sexual maturity Male traits - libido, semen quality
Size and Efficiency Growth and maturing rates Body weight Birth weight - neonatal survival Slaughter weight - meat yield Mature weight - maintenance requirements Body composition - edible tissue Voluntary feed intake Compositionof diet Efficiency of nutrient utilization for maintenance and production
Lactation Days of lactation Amount and persistencyof daily yield Compositionof milk
Fiber Weight and yield of fleece Fineness and uniformity of fiber diameter Strength of fiber - 38 -
Birthweight of singles was used as a proxy for slaughterweight, which was not known for these data. The Barbados Blackbellyranked highest because the larger litter size did not depress lamb survival or lengthen lambing interval;however, the relative advantage for efficiencywas reduced by the heavier weight (and higher maintenancerequirements) of the Blackbelly ewes.
Table 4.2.2.2. Averages for Production Traits and Indices for Hair Sheep Breeds
West Virgin Barbados Blackhead African Trait Pelibuey Islands Blackbelly Persian Forest
Litter size, no. lambs 1.24 1.61 1.84 1.08 1.22 Lambing interval, days 245 248a 248 248a 284 Lamb survival 0.79 0 .78a 0.78 0.65 0.72 Birth weight, kg 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.4 1.7 Ewe wei9ht, kg 34 35 40 27 27 WU 5 14.1 14.4 15.9 11.8 11.8 Flock ProductivityIndex 10.0 13.6 15.6 6.8 5.3 Flock Efficiency Index 0.71 0.95 0.98 0.58 0.45 a Average for Barbados Blackbelly substitutedfor unknown value. Source: Fitzhugh and Bradford (1983).
Weighting of traits in index by genetic statistics(heritability, genetic calculations)and relative economic values yield a selectionindex.
This characterizationstep is especiallycritical to formulating strategies for improvingpopulations in developingcountries. Relatively little is known about these populations. Is their small size and poor performance relative to "improved"breeds in temperateregions due to genetic inferiorityor, perhaps, these characteristicsreflect the consequencesof favorable adaptation to disease, climatic stress, and seasonal shortagesof feed. Only through simul- taneous comparisonof improved and native types under the prevailing production environmentcan these importantquestions be adequately answered.
When genetic resourceshave been adequately characterizedand production objectives have been carefully formulated,appropriate strategies can be imple- mented. Generally, selection for the measurable traits affecting productivity will be done in conjunctionwith the chosen mating plan. Options include:
Straightbreeding. An establishedinterbreeding population such as a breed or local type (e.g., Barbados Blackbelly sheep, West African Dwarf goats) is maintained to preserve and (through selection) improve favorable characteristics of the population such as prolificacyor disease resistance.
Crossbreeding. Two or more establishedgenetic populationsare inter- mated to gain advantage of hybrid vigor and to combine complementarytraits (e.g., milk yield of dairy breeds with fitness of native stock). Rotating breeds each generationcan maintain all or most of the hybrid vigor of the original first cross. - 39 -
Grading. An improved breed can be introduced into a region by breeding of the improved purebred (usually males) to the native type and to the successive generations of topcrossed stock. A continual source of purebred males (or semen) is required for the 4 to 5 generations needed to make the graded-up population essentially the same as the introduced breed. Favorable characteristics of the original native stock may be retained by directed selection during the grading process.
New Breed Development. Two or more breeds are used to synthesize a new breed combining all or most of the favorable characteristics of the original breeds or types and often retaining a substantial portion of the hybrid vigor resulting in the original cross. These synthetics have proven especially valuable as a means of incorporating improved productivity with fitness. Examples include Dorper sheep and the Boer goat. Synthetics are often most useful in situations where more complex schemes of rotational crossbreeding are not practical or where one or more of the original breeds cannot be maintained because of susceptibility to disease.
Introduction of Improved Breeds. During the colonial period, numerous European breeds were introduced to developing regions. Gen- erally, these were breeds noted for high levels of productivity under temperate conditions. Except in environments such as the East African highlands and the Latin American altiplano, these "improved" breeds often failed to perform as well as the local breeds under tropical con- ditions. Their impact has largely been in crossbreeding and development of breeds such as the Dorper.
The relatively poor success of breed introduction should not, however, discourage efforts to transfer productive genotypes to new en- vironments. Rather a different strategy should be followed. Instead of transferring temperate breeds to the tropics, the emphasis should be placed on transfer of superior genotypes which have evolved under devel- oping country conditions. Examples of highly productive, tropically adapted breeds include prolific hair sheep available in the Caribbean and dairy goat breeds from India.
Principal obstacles to these transfers include lack of well characterized stocks from which to select animals to be transferred and the potential for spreading diseases. These obstacles could be overcome by establishment of evaluation/multiplication centers on disease con- trolled stations--either in the country of origin or perhaps on tropical islands which do not have significant livestock populations at risk from disease introduction. The rapidly developing technology of embryo transfer offers additional potential for the safe introduction of exotic genotypes.
This international approach would likely require the support of an international institution to be successful. The costs of intro- ducing breeds from temperate regions are often part of an "aid" package from the developed country to the developing country; part of the incen- tive is that livestock producers in the developed country benefit from sales of breeding stock. This incentive would not be present if stocks are transferred from developing country to developing country. Invest- ment in animal evaluation and station establishment would, therefore, likely have to be made by a multilaterally supported international agency, such as the World Bank. - 40 -
4.3. Population,Products and Productivity
4.3.1. Population
Population and growth statistics for sheep and goats are summarized for the periods of 1961-65 to 1980 by regions in table 4.3.1.1. Classificationof regions according to degree of development (or industrialization)is a convenienceand the considerablevariation between and within countries and regions in degree of developmentis well recognized.
The majority of the world's small ruminants are found in developing regions--56%of the sheep and 96% of the goats. During the past decade (1970-1980),the world population of sheep increased 3% and all of this increase was in the developing regions. Similarly, the 14% increase in world population of goats has been in the developing regions. In fact, numbers of sheep and goats in the developed regions have actually declined during the past decade.
Reasons for the continuing growth of small ruminants popula- tions in developingbut not developed regions can only be speculated upon. However, it seems likely that these reasons are based on the relative advantages/disadvantagesof small ruminants discussed in another section. Suffice it at this point to take note of these growth trends in developing countries and thus their potential relevance to World Bank Projects.
Indicators of the relative importance of sheep and goats are presented in table 4.3.1.2. Numbers per 100 ha of land area are fairly low; this is probably a reflection of the fact that small ruminants, especiallygoats, tend to be found on poor quality range and pasture lands which cannot support heavy stocking rates. Numbers per 100 people are higher for sheep in developed than in developing countries because of the overwhelminglyinfluence of Australia and New Zealand. In the case of goats, however, the much greater relative numbers per human are in the developing regions reflecting the importance of this species in the developingcountries.
4.3.2. Products
Sheep and goats are truly multiple purpose animals. Some breeds have been developed as specializedproducers of milk or fiber, but all contribute to meat supply.
World production data for sheep and goats were weighted by Shelton (1976) according to market values of their various products. Relative values are shown in table 4.3.2.1 on a world basis. Table 4.3.1.1. Changes in Regional Cattle, Sheep, and Goat Populations From 1961-65 to 19 8 0 a b
Cattle Sheep Goats
Region 1961-65 change 1969-71 change 1980 1961-65 change 1969-71 change 1980 1961-65 change 1969-71 change 1980
Developed Regions North America 115,157 8 123,999 -0 123,595 29,990 -29 21,168 -38 13,185 3,770 -29 2,661 -46 1,426 Western Europe 84,798 5 88,803 7 95,007 91,137 -7 84,435 6 89,258 10,878 -11 9,715 -0 9,673 Eastern Europe 32,543 5 34,132 14 39,068 42,836 -0 42,760 5 44,868 3,559 -25 2,658 -35 1,736 USSR 83,493 16 96,707 19 115,100 133,867 2 136,434 5 143,599 6,422 -17 5,355 9 5,824 Oceania 25,003 24 31,116 11 34,580 211,460 12 236,959 -14 204,757 33 97 65 260 234
Total 340,994 10 374,757 9 407,350 509,290 2 521,756 -5 495,667 24,662 -17 20,454 -8 18,893 I
Developing Regions Middle America 36,627 18 43,071 23 52,866 7,138 38 9,851 -11 8,779 11,354 -0 11,331 -17 9,432 South America - Tropical 94,766 24 117,601 21 141,954 44,210 3 45,730 4 47,469 20,496 -41 12,123 28 15,477 South America - Temperate 54,587 11 60,505 16 70,385 77,002 -10 69,488 -15 58,761 6,058 3 6,237 -42 3,612 North Africa - Mid East 49,287 24 61,217 20 73,577 144,545 173,902 24 215,463 79,058 10 87,150 24 108,423 Central and 20 Southern Africa 117,479 11 130,527 10 143,696 109,057 8 118,320 6 125,140 93,712 20 112,184 8 121,286 India 175,726 -1 177,447 3 182,500 40,936 -1 40,657 2 41,300 62,334 7 66,529 8 71,650 China & Mongolia 63,085 -5 59,700 -8 54,968 76,637 24 94,665 24 116,968 58,655 12 65,968 30 85,477 South & S.E. Asia 55,706 15 63,789 17 74,513 7,048 -8 6,500 29 8,417 21,170 1 21,363 21 25,815
Total 647,263 10 713,857 11 794,459 506,573 10 559,113 11 622,297 352,837 9 382,885 15 441,172
World 988,257 10 1,088,613 10 1,201,810 1,015,863 6 1,080,867 3 1,117,964 377,500 7 403,339 14 460,065 a1971 FAO Production Yearbook and 1981 Production Yearbook. b Populations are in thousands. Table 4.3.1.2. Relative Importance of Sheep and Goatsa
Sheep per: Goats per:
Arable Region land 100 Ha 100 People 100 Cattle 100 Ha 100 People 100 Cattle
Developed Regions North America 12.6 .7 5.3 10.6 .08 .6 1.1 Western Europe 25.1 26.5 26.2 98.0 2.9 2.9 10.8 East Europe 42.9 35.9 33.2 117.0 1.4 1.3 4.5 USSR 10.4 6.4 52.9 123.0 .3 2.2 5.1 Oceania 5.7 25.9 1151.0 606.1 .04 1.6 .8
Total 12.2 9.3 48.4 121.7 .4 1.9 4.8
Developing Regions Middle America 13.6 3.6 7.5 17.7 3.5 7.5 17.6 South America--Tropical 6.0 3.5 23.4 33.1 1.1 7.6 10.7 South America--Temperate 11.6 15.6 137.6 83.0 1.0 8.7 5.2 North Africa--Mid East 8.1 14.3 62.9 300.5 7.1 31.4 149.9 Central and Southern Africa 6.7 5.8 33.6 86.5 5.7 33.1 85.3 India 56.9 14.0 5.9 22.8 24.3 10.3 39.6 China and Mongolia 9.2 11.0 11.8 214.0 8.0 8.6 155.6 South and Southeast Asia 16.3 1.4 1.3 11.0 4.5 3.9 34.0
Total 10.4 8.2 18.2 79.1 5.8 12.9 56.0
World 11.1 8.6 25.1 93.5 3.6 10.4 38.7 aFrom 1981 FAO Production Yearbook. - 43 -
Table 4.3.2.1. Relative Value of Sheep and Goat Products, %
Product Sheep Goats
Meat 43.4 35.6 Milk 15.0 58.4 Fiber 39.3 1.7 Hides 2.3 4.3
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: Shelton (1976).
The economic importance of specific sma7l ruminant products varies substantially between regions of the world. A few examples il- lustrate the products and differences in the regional importance of major small ruminant products.
Meat. Carcass yields are approximately 50% of live weight, declining to 40% when pelts are heavily wooled or slaughtered stock carry little fat. Location of fat deposits vary considerably between sheep and goats (table 4.3.2.2), with goats having relatively less sub- cutaneous fat and sheep less visceral fat. An American taste panel scored goat meat lower than lamb, beef or pork (table 4.3.2.3); however, elsewhere goat meat, such as "cabrito" in Mexico, is preferred.
In coastal West Africa, small ruminants are raised in village herds, almost exclusively for meat (Josserand and Ariza-Nino 1982, Gefu 1982). In the semiarid zone of northern Africa, sheep and goats provide 31% of the meat while only accounting for 16% of the live weight biomass (Wilson 1982). In Lebanon, Yemen, the United Arab Republic, and the Yemen Democratic Republic, goats are the source of over 50% of meat consumed and in Somalia, Jordan, and India, about 30% of the total meat
Table 4.3.2.2. Location of Separable Fat in Goats and Lambs (%)a
Subcutaneous Intermuscular Cavityb Visceral
Goats 14 40 15 30 Lambs 30 45 11 15
aAdapted from Ladipo (1973) as presented by McDowell and Bove (1977). bKidney, pelvic, and heart fat. - 44 -
Table 4.3.2.3. Sensory Panel Rating for PalatabilityCharacteristics of Cooked Loina,b
Palatabilitycharacteristic Goat Lamb Beef Pork
Flavor 5.7 6.3 6.3 6.4 Juciness 5.5 6.6 5.8 5.4 Tenderness 5.0 7.2 5.9 6.6 Overall satisfaction 5.4 6.6 6.2 6.2 aScores could range from 1 (extremelybland flavor, extremelydry, extremely tough) to 8 (extremelyintense flavor, extremely juicy, qxtremely tender). bAdapted from Smith et al. (1974). supply is from goat meat (FAO/WorldBank 1977). Goats are particularlyprized in arid areas for their ability to survive drought periods, and as a result, stabilize the meat supply during periods when sheep and cattle production is low (Wilson 1982).
Milk. Selected breeds of sheep and goats milked for human consumptioncommonly lactate for 6 to 7 months; average daily yields range from .5 to 4 kg with European dairy goat breeds at the higher end of this production range (tables 4.3.2.4, 4.3.2.5). Most sheep and goats in developing countries are milked for family use; yields are low and must be shared with the preweaned young. Nevertheless, these small quantities can be an important dietary supplement to protein deficient people.
Sheep milk is as much as 75% higher in fat and total solids content than cow or goat milk (table 4.3.2.6). Goat milk has a reputation for being easily digestible and also for use by humans who are allergic to cows milk. Differencesin allergic response are probably not associated with lactose intolerancesince cow and goats milk are similar in percent lactose (table 4.3.2.6). Fat globules in goats milk are smaller and more dispersed (naturallyhomogenized) than in cows milk.
In the tropics, where there is little or no photoperiod effect on conceptions,milk is produced throughout the year. In SahelianWest Africa, goats are primarily raised in large herds with milk the most valued output (Josserandand Ariza-Nino 1982). In Bangladesh and Cyprus, goats produce 33% and 57% of the milk consumed (Devendra 1982a). In many countries, the relatively small yields of - 45 -
Table 4.3.2.4. Lactation Traits for Some Breeds of Dairy Sheepa
Lactation Total milk Breed Location length (days) yield (kg)
East Fresian Germany 260 500 Awassi Middle East 260 130-270 Chios Greece, Turkey 170-260 100-250 Sardinian Italy 170-250 110-230 Lacaune France 100-210 135 aFrom Gall (1975).
Table 4.3.2.5. LactationTraits for Dairy Goat Breeds in Temperate and Tropical Environmentsa
Temperate environment Tropical environment Lactation Milk Lactation Milk Breed length (days) yield (kg) length (days) yield (kg)
Saanen 260-365 430-1277 240-336 292-1037 Alpine 260-305 470-916 209-264 232-904 Toggenburg 266-305 468-878 212-283 250-532 Anglo Nubian 276-365 752-989 124-300 143-300 La Mancha 276-305 800 -- --
aAdapted from summary of literatureby Sands and McDowell (1979).
Table 4.3.2.6. Compositionof Fresh Milk from Sheep, Goats, and Cattle (%)a
Species Total Solids Fat Protein Lactose
Sheep 16-20 5-8 5-6.5 4.4 Goats 11.5-13.5 3.5-8.0 2.8-3.0 3.9-4.4 Cattle 13 3.4-5.4 3.5-4.0 4.6 aFrom Gall (1975). - 46 -
sheep and goat milk are consumed by the household,but elsewhere, such as Mexico, milk is processed for commercial sales of specialtyproducts such as candy and cheese (Winrock 1977). Pastoralistsin northeastern Iran processmilk into clarified butter and cheese that is both consumed by the household and the surplus sold to generate cash income (Martin 1982).
Fiber. Undomesticatedspecies of sheep and goats generally have an outer coat of coarse hair over an undercoatof finer hair or wool. Selection in commercialfiber producing breeds of sheep has favored finer unmedullated(solid core) fibers which tend to be softer and to have preferreddyeing propertiesto coarser, medullated fibers. Mohair and cashmere,like wool, are generally unmedullated. Wool varies in fiber diameter from about 15 to 40 em; mohair, from 25 to 40 em; and cashmere from 15 to 20 em. A principal difference is smoothness of fiber surfacewith cashmere the smoothest, followed by mohair and wool. Both sheep and goats produce kemp, an undesirablefiber which is rela- tively coarse (100 em in diameter)with a medulla (hollow core) constituting65 percent of the cross-sectionalarea and extending the length of the fiber.
White fibers are preferred because of their favorabledyeing properties. Mohair and most commercialwool is white. However, the finest grades of cashmere are dark colored and must be bleached before dyeing. Brown, red, gray, and black colored wool and hair--solidsand spots--arecommon among breeds of goats and sheep not kept primarily for fiber production.
Cashmere and mohair from goats are specialty fibers whose de- mand is closely linked to changing fashions in developed countries. Over the long run, prices for these fibers are projectedto be favorable (De Boer 1982). Carpet wool is a significantproduct in certain devel- oping countries but is not consideredhere. Fine wool production is re- stricted to higher income developing countries and high altitude regions of the tropics and sub-tropicsand is not considered in this paper.
The production of qualitymohair fiber is extremely location specific with South Africa (32%), Turkey (31%), and the USA (25%) domi- nating the world supply of mohair. Of these producing countries,only South Africa has the capacity to increase quality mohair production (De Boer 1982). A constraint for developing countriesis the high levels of management required to compete in the high quality end of the market, limited areas of suitable land and difficultiesof maintaininghigh quality breeding stock.
Manure is often an important product of sheep and goat sys- tems, serving as a source of both fuel and fertilizer (Buvanendran 1978). Wilson (1982) estimated that an 18 kg goat produces 74 kg dry matter/yearwith a nitrogen, phosphate, and potash value of 1.5%, 1.5%, and 3%, respectively.
Skins and pelts are used to make tents, water holders, sad- dles, clothing and other items (Bharat n.d.). In many developing re- gions, especiallywhere protein is in short supply, skins are eaten-- cooked or pickled (Josserandand Ariza-Nino 1982). Major African ex- - 4'7- porter of skins/hides are Sudan and Ethiopia. In Brazil, another major exporter both of skins and finished leather, the value of the skin is 25 to 30% of total goat value (Gutierrez and De Boer 1982).
The demand for skins is largely set by the market for finished leather goods in developed countries. About 60% to 70% of sheep and goat skins are used to produce shoes and 20% for garments (De Boer 1982). In recent years, synthetic substitutes have made inroads into the leather market, but a strong demand for sheep/goat skins in devel- oped countries is forecast by 1985 with potential demand exceeding pro- duction by from 100,000-170,000 m.t. of skins (Barat, n.d.). A major constraint is the farm level processing of skins to maintain quality standards and the development of economical methods of local assembly of skins.
Skins are a by-product of animals slaughtered for meat. As such, supply is relatively independent of demand. For technical and economic reasons, skins cannot be stockpiled so prices fluctuate in re- sponse to demand changes. Increasingly, primary processing is being done locally with some countries banning the export of hides/skins.
4.3.3. Productivity in Developing Regions vs Developed Regions
Productivity of small ruminants in developing countries was strikingly lower than in developed countries in the early 70s and, un- fortunately, remains so in 1981 (table 4.3.3.1). Thus, while total
Table 4.3.3.1. Comparison of Changes in Small Ruminant Numbers and Productivity Between 1972 and 1981
1972 1981
World Developed Developing World Developed Developing totals regionsa regionsa totals regionsa regionsa
Sheep Numberb 1,043 51 49 1,131 44 56 Meatc 5.8 63 37 6.0 55 45 Milkc 7.1 48 52 7.9 46 54
Goats Numberb 392 5 95 469 4 96 Meatc 1.4 8 92 2.0 7 93 Milkc 6.8 28 72 7.6 26 74 a Expressed as percentage of world total. b Million head. c Million metric tons. Sources: 1974 FAQ Production Yearbook. 1981 FAO Production Yearbook. - 4 8 -
product from small ruminantsin developing regions has increased,these increases are a consequenceof increased numbers, not increasedproduc- tivity. Significantopportunities exist in developingregions to im- prove productionenvironLment, genotype and marketing structure for small ruminants.
In terms of productivityper animal the yield-*ofmeat and milk from both sheep and goats is very much higher in developed countries (tables 4.3.3.2 and 4.3.3.3). In developing countriesmeat production from sheep is only 64% and milk productionfrom sheep 94% of that in developed countries,while goat milk productionis only 12% and goat meat productiononly 62% of that in developed countries.
With respect to fiber (scouredwool) only 33% of world total is produced in the developingregions even though 56% of the world's sheep are in these regions. This relfects lower productivityand also the predominanceof hair sheep in the developingregions as opposed to wool sheep in the developed regions. The weight of hides and skins from sheep is approximatelyequal in both the developed and developing regions of the world at around 14%, while goats contributeapproximately 5% in the developingregions but only 15% in the developed countries (table 4.3.3.4). Clearly there is enormous potential for improving the productivityof sheep and goats in the LDCs.
4.4. Consumptionand Trade
4.4.i. Consumption
World production,consumption, and trade of meat for the period 1967 to 1977 has been recently analyzed (Wheeler et al., 1981). These regional designations--developed,developing, and centrally planned--correspondto those used by FAO.
During this period (1967-1977)world output of meat increased at an average annual rate of 3 million tons. On a percentagebasis, the greatest rate of increases in meat tonnage occurred in the developing region (figure 4.4.1.1). Increases in the developingregion's percent of world totals occurred for all species but the greater share of increaseswere for poultry and small ruminants.
The significanceof the data for goats lies in the fact that 93% of the goat meat and 73% of the goat milk is produced in the developingregions although goat products (meat and milk) both account for less than 2% in each case of the world's productionof meat and milk from all sources as shown in table 4.4.1.2.
Average per capita consumptionof all meat increasedby 2.9 kg from 1967 to 1977. Increasesby region were: Developed,10 kg; Centrally Planned, 5 kg and Developing,2 kg. Although meat consumption for developingregions increased40% over this period, average daily consumptionin 1977 still amounted to less than 31 grams. Between 1967 and 1977 the developingregion's percentageshare of world meat consumptionincreased slightly for beef, declined slightly for pork, and increasedmore substantiallyfor poultry and sheep and goat meat (figure 4.4.1.2). - 49 -
Between 1967 and 1977 per capita consumptionof mutton--sheep and goat meat--declinedon a worldwide basis (figure 4.4.1.3). However, consumer preferences,income changes, and other factors combined to in_
Table 4.3.3.2. Productivityof Regional Goat Populationsa
Total Head Carcass Milk number slaughtered yield yield Region (millions) (% total) (kg)b (kg)b
Developed Regions North America 1.4 - - Western Europe 10.1 80 7.6 145.0 East Europe 1.7 59 8.6 78.4 USSR 5.9 46 6.9 67.6 Oceania 0.3 27 7.2 -
Total 19.5 61 6.9 103.0
Developing Regions Middle America - Caribbean 9.5 31 3.2 34.6 South America - Tropical 15.5 28 3.5 8.1 South America - Temperate 3.6 33 3.0 2.8 North Africa - Mid East 112.2 39 5.2 22.2 Central & Southern Africa 123.3 32 3.7 6.6 India 72.1 43 3.9 13.1 China & Mongolia 86.9 29 4.4 3.5 South & SoutheastAsia 26.2 43 4.4 20.6
Total 449.2 35 4.3 12.4
World 468.7 37 4.4 16.1 a Population and productionstatistics for 1980 summarizedfrom 1981 FAO Production Yearbook. b Yield per head in regional herd. - 50 -
Table 4.3.3.3 Productivityof Regional Sheep Populationsa
Total Head Carcass Milk number slaughtered yield yield Region (millions) (% total) (kg)b (kg)b
Developed Regions North America 13 47 11.8 - Western Europe 92 62 9.4 27.9 East Europe 45 38 5.7 20.7 USSR 142 37 5.8 0.7 Oceania 205 35 5.8 -
Total 497 42 6.6 7.2
Developing Regions Middle America - Caribbean 10 19 2.3 - South America - Tropical 48 15 1.9 0.7 South America - Temperate 57 18 3.0 - North Africa - Mid East 225 38 5.9 15.2 Central & Southern Africa 125 28 3.4 2.4 India 42 33 3.0 - China & Mongolia 119 26 4.1 4.6 South & SoutheastAsia 8 43 4.7 1.9
Total 634 30 4.2 6.8
World 1,131 35 5.3 7.0 a Populationand production statistics for 1981 summarizedfrom 1981 FAO ProductionYearbook (1982). b Yield per head in regional herd. Table 4.3.3.4. Production of Scoured Wool and Fresh Hides from Small Ruminants, 1981
Total wt Sheep skins Goat skins Wool, hides & Region scouredb skinsb wtb % of totalC wtb % of totalc
Developed Regions North America 26.3 1,115.1 19.1 1.7 - - Western Europe 92.9 1,019.0 124.5 12.2 10.9 1.1 East Europe 70.2 332.2 40.8 12.3 2.1 0.6 USSR 272.4 830.0 106.0 12.8 6.2 0.7 Oceania 662.1 486.3 264.7 54.4 .2 0.03
Total 1,123.9 3,782.5 555.1 14.7 19.5 0.5
Developing Regions Middle America 4.2 193.6 6.7 3.4 7.7 4.0 South America - Tropical 33.0 510.4 21.6 4.2 10.9 2.1 South America - Temperat 150.3 598.0 60.8 10.2 3.0 0.5 North Africa - Mid East 134.5 640.4 238.5 37.2 99.4 15.5 Central & Southern Afric 74.9 528.3 82.5 15.6 80.8 15.3 India 23.0 916.0 36.9 4.0 72.9 8.0 China & Mongolia 119.7 530.0 88.9 16.8 57.6 10.9 South & Southeast Asia 3.3 331.2 8.8 2.7 28.6 8.6
Total 543.0 4,247.9 544.8 12.8 360.9 8.5
World 1,666.9 8,030.4 1,099.9 13.7 380.4 4.7 a 1981 FAO Production Yearbook (1982). b 1000 MT. c Percentage of total hides and skins; does not include wool. - 52 - Figure 4.4.1.1 World Meat Production,by Region Source: Wheeler et al. 1981.
DISTRIBUTIONOF MEATPRODUCTION 1967 1977
Dvelope 48.2° / Developed\ 50.2%
V Cl~~ty 3%c
Planned 31.9%
Ai MEAT miywhontons) 88.14 117.85
Developed / 51.9%\ Develbped 51.4%
Planned |Developng Centrally21.4%d 1 Developng67° 23.5% 25.1% v >14°
BEEF 46.8 trm4ilontons) 36.40 46.81
Developed 45.1° 48% 97
8%Ph| rti \ Centrally C;entrally /\ Planned/
PORK Deveoping Deping gnllliontons) 31.93
/ \loe 52.B8o 59.3% raifi
PlannedS G Plarned j 17.6S
De Devekp~~~~~~~~evd pe POULTRYseve6 ping Developmng (nvmllon tons) 13.15 22.78 C entrally C entrally
Developed > Developed ~ 35.8h./(
Centrally 266 N Certrally 24. 45. SHEEP8 GOAT Pe Developtn DeveloPing mIrrlkentons) 6.66 7.30 - 53 -
Figure 4.4.12 World Meat Consumptionby Region, 1967 - 1977 Source: Wheeler et al. 1981.
ALL MEAT 1967 1977 (milleontons) 88.14 117.85
51.9°%
/51.4% \
Centrally Centrally }Developmng Planneo Developing \ Planned ] 26.^P \235% 25.1% 21 Developed~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~veo
(milliontons) 38.40 46.81
Developed \ / ~~~~~~45.1%\ Developed 58
raCenrily Platneo
PORK Developing Developing (milliontonss 31393 40.96
e Develope 59 30/o 528
\Plannedi \/ Planned 176% \28.7% 12 \/ 29.6% \ / D35lpe82.% POULTRY Deveioping vDeveloping (milliontonal 13.15 22.78 Cenrally C Centrally
Developed 4 Developed {
Centrally 26 376 Centrally 2i4.3 2J SHEEP& GOAT Planned Developing Plannet Developing (milliontonsl 6.66 7.30 - 54 -
Table 4.4.1.2. Contributions of Sheep and Goats to Regional and World Supplies of Meat and Milka
Sheep meatb Goat meatb Total meat 1000 % of 1000 % of Region 1000 MT MT total MT total
Developed Regions North America 27,105 159 0.6 - - Western Europe 26,635 865 3.2 77 0.3 East Europe 10,989 256 2.3 15 0.1 USSR 15,097 816 5.4 41 0.3 Oceania 3,780 1,193 31.6 2 0.1 Total 83,606 3,289 3.9 135 0.2
Developing Regions Middle America 2,806 22 0.8 30 1.1 South America - Tropical 7,152 92 1.3 54 0.8 South America - Temperate 4,587 170 3.7 11 0.2 North Africa - Mid East 4,886 1,324 27.1 583 11.9 Central & Southern Africa 4,494 428 9.5 459 10.2 India 808 125 15.5 280 34.7 China & Mongolia 22,901 493 2.2 381 1.7 South & Southeast Asia 7,535 40 0.5 116 1.5 Total 55,169 2,694 4.9 1,914 3.5
World 138,776 5,984 4.3 2,049 1.5
Sheep milkC Goat milkC Total milk 1000 % of 1000 % of Region 1000 MT MT total MT total
Developed Regions North America 68,186 - - - - Western Europe 138,481 2,568 1.9 1,470 1.1 East Europe 44,346 932 2.1 136 0.3 USSR 88,500 100 0.1 400 0.5 Oceania 11,824 - - - - Total 351,337 3,600 1.0 2,006 0.6
Developing Regions Middle America 10,734 - - 327 3.0 South America - Tropical 16,449 35 0.2 126 0.8 South America - Temperate 7,184 - - 10 0.1 North Africa - Mid East 27,299 3,416 12.5 2,488 9.1 Central & Southern Africa 8,387 297 3.5 813 9.7 India 31,948 - - 948 3.0 China & Mongolia 7,967 547 6.9 301 3.8 South & Southeast Asia 10,319 16 0.2 539 5.2 Total 120,287 4,311 3.6 5,552 4.6
World 471,625 7,910 1.7 7,559 1.6 a 1981 FAO Production Yearbook. b Carcass weight expressed as a percentage of total carcass weight production from cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry, and swine. c Fresh milk yield expressed as a percentage of total milk production _4 >- | 1I nI 1-PC^1 ..... - -o ,,, -- nt n - 55 -
Figure 4.4.1.3 Per Capita Sheep and Goat Meat Consumption, by Region, 1967 - 1977 Source: Wheeler et al. 1981.
3.62 3.5-
3- 2.91
G2.5-= U aQ. 2- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1.79 ~1.97 a. La 1150 1.61 E 1.5_1 142
Y 1- _;
.5-_
Developed Centrally Developing World Planned
Legend. C1t967 g 1977 - 56 -
crease mutton consumptionin developing regions, primarily in North Africa, Middle East, Central Africa, and SoutheasternAsia (Wheeler et al., 1981). In these three regions, the 3.5 kg of sheep and goat meat consumed per capita (substantiallyhigher than the 1.6 kg average for developing regions) constitutedapproximately one-third of total annual meat consumption.
4.4.2. Meat Trade and Relative Prices
Internationaltrade of meat amounted to 7% of world production in 1977. Beef was the most importantmeat traded both in value and volume.
Trade of mutton (essentiallyall sheep meat) accounted for 13% of total production in 1977. Oceania exported 655,300 tons, 77% of the internationaltrade. The EC-3 (Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom) was the major importer,counting for 47% of all imports. Exports to North Africa-MiddleEast increased from 4,000 tons in 1967 to 128,100 tons in 1977, and probably represents the market with the greatest potential for expansion (figure 4.4.2.1). These statistics do not show movements of live animals and meat across national boundarieswithin regions. These movements can be locally significantand provide the major market for producers in countrieswith limited demand due to limited population and/or limited buying power.
With limited exception of specialityproducts, such as cheese, there is no significantinternational trade in sheep or goat milk products.
Potential for developingexport trade from developing countries is limited by several factors: anticipatedincreases in local demand could absorb increased productivity;endemic disease problems limit movement of animals or uncooked meat; major exporters such as Australia have well establishedtrade channels. In those cases where trade developmentappears feasible (e.g., East Africa to Mid East), significantefforts in developing market infrastructure,transportation and trade agreementswill be required.
On a regional basis, there does not appear to be any major price advantage favoring sheep and goats relative to cattle.
Table 4.4.2.1 and Appendix tables 3-5 indicate that on a regional basis, live animal prices (per kg basis) tend to be similar between cattle, sheep and goats. After taking into account the
Table 4.4.2.1. Unweighted Ratio of Live Weight Farmgate Prices of Cattle/Pricesof Sheep and Goats in Africa and Latin America for 1962, 1966, and 1970
1962 1966 1970
Africa 1.02 0.98 0.99 Latin America 1.10 0.95 0.98
Source: Appendix Tables 3 and 4. - 57 -
Figure 4.4.2.1 Interregional Trade Flow of Sheep and Goat Meat, 1977 Source: Wheeler et al. 1981.
Legernd: a- Expots
@XU.S. Canada European
~ ~ ~~ ~i5 &~~ Mexico& .t EasternEurope (~~~) C. Amernca & U.S.S.R. Imports
Ote Asia O Soujth Ametrica Other (Japan Jap / ( ¢ WW. Europe
North Atrica sMiddie East
Ct~a&Tamwan
AustrakaaOther Africa New Zestand - 58 -
generally lower dressing percentagesof sheep and goats, the prices of retail meat would generally be expected to be 5% to 10% above those for beef on a regional level. Based on these tables as well as on recent field investigations,it is obvious that there can be great variation in relative prices between as well as within countries. Therefore,local studies of prices and price variations are required to supplementthe analysis which follows.
Long-termprices for sheep and goat meat are assumed to follow beef, the major meat traded internationally. Table 4.4.2.2 gives the most recent estimated and projected prices for beef entering interna- tional trade. In terms of constant 1981 prices, the outlook through 1995 is for virtually no change in price from the 1980-81 period. Prices are projected to remain well below those of the boom period (1960-1970)in world beef trade when prices (1981 constant)averaged 315 cents per kg. Table 4.4.2.3 shows actual trends over the 1961-1980 period and also presents comparable figures for coarse grains, rice, and wheat. The consumptionshares of beef and veal in the developing coun- tries and semi-industrialdeveloping countries has remained virtually the same. The major shift has been a decrease in the share by the in- dustrial countries and a commensurateincrease in the share of the CentrallyPlanned Economies. The worldwide rate of growth of consumptionof beef and veal over the 1961-1980period was only 2.6% per annum. With world population growth averaging 1.9% over this period, worldwide per capita consumptionincreased about 0.7 of 1% per year. Table 4.4.2.2. Export Prices of Beef in Current Dollars and in 1981 Constant Dollars (US cents/kg F.O.B.)
Actual Estimated Projected T T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Average 1975 1976 1977 | 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985 1990 J1995 1960-70
Current 133 158 151 214 | 288 276 248 240 280 325 425 590 93 Constant 206 241 212 254 | 307 266 248 231 254 256 250 268 315
Source: World Bank (1982). Table 4.4.2.3. Growth of World Consumption of Beef and Selected Cereal Products and Changes in Consumption Shares, 1961-1980
Worldwide Consumption shares rate of _ Semi-industrial growth developing countries 1961-80 Centrally Planned Semi-Industrial rate of growth I Commodity (% per annum) Industrial Countries Economies Developing Countries Developing Countries 1961-80 a
1961 1970 1975 1980 1961 1970 1975 1980 1961 1970 1975 1980 1961 1970 1975 1980 x per annum
Coarse grains 2.5 42.1 41.2 40.5 35.5 21.1 20.5 19.8 22.7 36.7 38.3 39.7 41.8 10.2 11.3 13.4 14.6 4.2 Rice 2.7 7.8 5.8 6.0 3.7 6.3 7.1 5.9 5.6 85.9 87.1 88.2 90.8 7.2 7.7 7.8 7.8 3.0 Wheat 3.4 27.5 21.8 24.3 20.1 35.6 38.2 28.0 32.9 36.9 40.0 47.7 47.0 13.0 11.0 13.2 12.6 3.1 Beef and veal 2.6 50.0 48.6 48.3 44.3 14.6 18.9 20.0 20.3 35.2 32.4 31.7 35.4 17.2 16.3 16.4 17.8 2.9
Source: World Bank (1982). - 61 -
5. CONSTRAINTS TO INCREASED SMALL RUMINANT PRODUCTIVITY
Any of the components of livestock production systems--re- source inputs, production processes, and product outputs--can be a con- straint to system productivity. Alleviation of constraints is the im- plicit goal of most research, training, and development projects. The three general categories of constraints used here include:
o Ecological: land, climate
o Biological: livestock nutrition--water, feed; livestock health--disease, parasites, and predators; livestock geno- type--production and adaptation traits
o Socioeconomic: labor availability and management skills; consumer taste/preference and disposable income; credit availability and cost; marketing infrastructure; and poli- cies--trade, prices, and land tenure.
Generally little can be done to change ecological con- straints. However, well-designed strategies to resolve biological and socio-economic constraints can have major impact on sheep and goat pro- duction.
Constraints are listed and discussed as if they were discrete factors, each affecting livestock production independently. In fact, interactions among constraints are the rule, not the exception, with their effects often multiplicative rather than additive. One constraint may mask the effects of others. Thus, it is necessary to consider the total system so that multiple interacting constraints can be systemati- cally resolved in order to achieve substantial improvement.
5.1. Ecological
Land and climate are primary determinants of the plant species that can be grown and, in turn, of the livestock species that can be produced in an ecosystem. Constraints that impact on livestock produc- tion are: land (topography and soil fertility) and climate (rainfall, temperature, and growing season). Of these, only soil fertility is readily amenable to change, and only if required nutrients can be ap- plied economically. Application of fertilizers would be limited pri- marily to crops in crop/livestock systems and to nominal amounts on seeded pastures. Nitrogen fixation and animal manures can provide sig- nificant amounts of the nitrogen required in grazing and crop/livestock systems.
Ecological factors need to be carefully considered in sheep and goat production systems for several reasons. First, the indiscrimi- nate introduction of these species (particularly goats) has been blamed for the degradation of environments giving the goat an undeserved bad reputation which remains a serious deterrent to projects involving goats. Second, a small ruminant system cannot persist if the environ- ment changes negatively due to the introduction of sheep and goats. - 62 -
5.2. BiologicalConstraints
5.2.1. Nutrition. Feed supply is the most pervasive constraint to livestock production. It is directly dependent upon the production of plant biomass, both in grazing and crop/livestock systems. It is an absolute requisite that must be treated in the broadest context, includ- ing native and improved pastures, forage crops, feed crops, crop resi- dues, and by-products. Feed supply has both quantitative and qualita- tive dimensions. Quantity can be increased by the proper stocking of rangelands, the establishment of improved pastures to complement native pastures, the planting of forage crops, soil and water conservation practices, and the timely harvest and storage of crop residues. Quality relates to the overall nutrient adequacy of pastures, forages, and other feeds consumed, as well as the means to correct any deficiencies through improved pasture management, fresh cut and stored forages, and/or sup- plementation.
Seasonal fluctuations in feed supply can be a special problem, especially in the wet/dry tropics. Whereas feed may be abundant in the rainy season, inability to preserve this abundance leads to dry-season deficiencies. The impact of these shortages in constraining the higher potential reproductive efficiency of sheep and goats is critical to the economics of investing in cropping/forage systems to provide feed and in preserving and enhancing the digestibility of roughages commonly found on small farms in the tropics and sub-tropics.
The availability of water as a nutrient is often a primary constraint to livestock production, particularly in arid and semiarid regions. Many projects have been dedicated to finding and delivering livestock water. Often results have been beneficial with new lands opened for grazing and increases in productivity. However, in other in- stances, there have been unanticipated problems, such as overstocking and land degradation near water. These experiences emphasize the need to first understand the nature of the water constraint and its environ- mental and economic ramifications before programs are implemented to alleviate this constraint.
The impact of attending to these particular problems is often spectacular. A comparison of goats fed under traditional village sys- tems with those adequately fed in an experimental group showed more than 50% increase in live weight at comparable age (Devendra 1981). Other evidence that nutrition is a primary constraint in the tropics comes from observations of lower productivity of high producing animals when moved to the tropics due to reduced intake, (Mba et al., 1975, Chenost and Geoffrey 1971, Devendra 1972) and also significant increases in pro- ductivity of local goats when energy and protein levels are deliberately increased (Sachdeva et al., 1973). These responses may be accentuated when genotypes of higher potential productivity are introduced (McDowell 1974).
In developing countries, nutrition of sheep and goats is basically provided by two vastly different systems--seasonally variable, extensive range and intensive mixed farms which tend to be small, with - 63 - limited resources for producing feed. The nutritionalproblems of the extensive systems are extremely difficult to solve primarilybecause they are subject to uncontrollableforces, particularlyrainfall, and in part because proper range management is difficultunder common property ownership.
Overcoming the constraintswill require two basic approaches--improvedfeeding strategies and improved resource conservation. These efforts in the extensive system include:
Improved drought feeding strategy, especially:
- Conservationby deferred grazin.
- Flock segragationto feed females.
- Earlier offtake of growing stock.
- Possibly improving range pastures.
In the intensivemixed-farm systems, they include:
Improved by-product feeding strategies,especially:
- Conservationof by-products (hay, silage).
- Use of multipurposecrops for feed and food.
- Cropping systems (intercropping,relay cropping,rotation) with forage legumes.
5.2.2. Health. Constraintsimposed on sheep and goat productionby diseases, parasites,and predators are substantialand highly visible. Trypanosomiasisand its vector, the tsetse fly, sharply limit livestock production in Africa from the southern edge of the Sahara to 15°S. On a worldwide basis, ticks take a heavy toll in blood loss, skin irritation, and disease transmission.
In much of the world, predators threaten small stock so that they must be kept under constant watch during the day and closely confined at night. Thus, grazing is limited to areas relatively close to the night pens, often during midday when animals suffer heat stress. In these situations,poor nutrition--ratherthan actual predation--reducesproductivity.
Substantialprogress has been made in technologyfor prevention and treatmentof animal health problems. However, the means to deliver this technologyis frequently lacking in developing countries where health officers are in short supply, roads are poor, and producers are suspiciousof government programs.
Small ruminant health problems in the developingcountries fall into the broad categoriesof: - 64 -
o Lowered resistancecaused by poor nutrition leading to death from disease, parasitism,or accidents that might otherwisehave been avoided.
o Transmissibledisease controllableonly by the direct interventionof vaccination,vector control, treatment or prophylacticmeasures which may be beyond the means of the limited resource farmers or the local government.
As in other systems the animal health problem is complex and closely interrelated to other biological and socio-economic constraints. Examples that illustratethe point include the need to shelter animals from predatorswhich lead to crowding for several hours each day exposing animals to transmissionof contagious diseases, parasitesand, at the same time, interruptingfeeding, increasingstress and lowering resistance. However, in southeastAsia confinementbecomes a positive factor in disease control. Removing manure through slatted floors provides valuable fertilizerand reduces endoparasiteburdens.
Overcomingthe major constraintsto the health of small ruminantswill require attention to:
o Providing adequate nutrition which leads to decreased susceptibilityto disease and parasitism.
o The use of disease resistant animals and studies on the mechanism and inheritanceof disease resistance.
o Improved parasite control.
o Improved control of endemic disease.
5.2.3. Genotype. For most sheep and goats in developingcountries, genetic potential for adaptationtakes precedenceover improved productivity. Often there may be negative genetic correlationsbetween traits for adaptation and production. The geneticmerit of most adapted breeds and types in developingcountries remains untested. Without this knowledge, the formulationof sound breeding plans as discussed in section 4.2.2 is not feasible and improvementof genetic potentialis unlikely. As shown in table 4.2.2.2, even for the more prolific breeds of sheep grown under tropical conditions, large differencesin efficiencyexists and genotype improvementcan undoubtedlyplay a role. Constraintsexist both in terms of defining and implementinga breeding research program and also in devising effectivemultiplication schemes to implement the research results.
5.3. Socio-EconomicConstraints
Many factors which impede the transfer of existing temperate zone sheep and goat production technologyto the production systems describedabove are socio-economicin nature. These are focused at the producer or organizational(e.g., ranches, cooperatives,marketing agencies) level in sections dealing with major economic and social variables which influence small ruminant numbers and productivity. Finally, institutionaland policy constraintsare noted. - 65 -
5.3.1. Inputsand Outputs
5.3.1.1. Labor use. Labor requirements for sheep and goats are depen- dent upon the production system and herd/flock size. Production systems are dependent primarily on ecozone but within an ecozone, several dis- tinct production systems may coexist. In general, as we move from ex- tensive production systems to more intensive systems, more labor per an- imal unit and per unit of output is required (Peters et al., 1982). Ranching is an important exception. Figure 5.3.1.1 sets out an approxi- mate ranking of different systems within and between ecozones. The dif- ferences within a management system (e.g., ranching) between zones de- pends upon the ecological characteristics which are labor specific such as increased labor needed for brush clearing in the semi-arid and sub- humid zones, for maintenance of fences, and animal protection. Differ- ences between full confinement systems are a function of distance re- quired to collect the daily feed and water; the more humid the ecosys- tem and the more intensive the agriculture practiced, the smaller are daily labor requirements needed for sheep and goat production.
For the arid pastoral regions of Africa, Jahnke (1982) esti- mates livestock population of 3 Tropical Livestock Units (one TLU = one 250 kg live weight animal) per economically active rural person. Ranch- ing schemes in this zone increase this to over 100 TLU per economically active person. In countries where extensive grazing dominates (Mauritania, Somalia, Botswana) the respective ratios of TLU/economical- ly active rural person are 7.7, 12.3 and 7.9. Using 10 sheep or goats per TLU gives each economically active rural person control of herd! flocks of 80-120 animals. In comparable ecozones of Kenya, full-time
Figure 5.3.1.1 Approximate Rankings of Labor Requirements for Small Ruminants Within and Between Ecozones A Ecozones TArid Semi-arid Sub-humid Humid Mixed farming-- full confinement Mixed farming- full confine- ment
Mixed farming- semi-confine- ment Mixed farming-- semi-confinement Mixed farming-- semi-confinement
Transhumance Pastoral Plantation grazing Pastoral Ranching Ranching Ranching
Growing days or annual raintalii - 66 - hired herders can handle about 200 sheep or goats (De Boer 1981). Traditional pastoral systems have high employment capacity at low levels of output per person engaged in pastoral pursuits. Despite the low pro- ductivity per person, labor constraints for specific operations or for specific times of the year are often cited as limiting factors in in- creasing productivity or herd/flock sizes.
In the semi-arid and sub-humid zones, the interaction of live- stock with crops becomes an important factor in labor use (Delgado and McIntire 1982, Little 1982). This is reflected in (a) higher labor in- puts in the transhumance system based on pastoralism plus grazing crop residues and (b) the necessity for semi-confinement with close herding and/or tethering for animal control in crop-animal systems. This begins to place definite limits on herd/flock size and labor requirements rise rapidly. Cattle must often be herded by males whereby sheep or goats can be herded by children, thus reducing the labor competition with crops. Labor budgeting between alternative management systems for mixed crop-livestock farms has been carried out recently in Kenya (De Boer 1981, Stotz 1980) and in Indonesia (Sabrani et al., 1981). Labor inputs for tethering or herding small flocks/herds are fairly similar but the labor inputs into full confinement systems are highly dependent upon the types of feed available and on distances traveled to collect feeds.
In most instances, labor used for sheep and goat production is supplied by family members. The persons providing the labor vary widely due to cultural factors and difficulty of tasks involved. If large herds are maintained or if predators are a serious problem, adult males will most likely provide the required labor. Smaller flocks are typi- cally herded by women or children. In Africa and in most other regions where goats are milked, women and children provide most of the milking labor. Low labor requirements and limited skill required to maintain a small flock of sheep and goats makes it possible for a household to generate an economic return from family labor that has little or no op- portunity cost. Ilowever, as children in poorer regions begin to attend school, labor bottlenecks may occur.
5.3.1.2. Capital use. Capital requirements for sheep and goats consist mainly of the stock. In some production systems (e.g., Indonesia and the Philippines), sheep and goat owners rent out breeding stock to neighbors and jointly share the offspring. This system provides an op- portunity for owners of large flocks to transfer labor costs to others, reduce disease risk associated with high animal populations, and creates social bonds. Also, lending of sheep and goats provides a mechanism for poor farmers to acquire initial breeding stock which can be used to build their own flock (Mink 1982, Devendra 1982b). In most small farm systems the value of land devoted specifically to sheep and goats is generally small or negligible. Land is either communally owned or de- voted to other primary activities (food crop, fallow, plantation crops, field margins). Under private ranching schemes, the value of standing livestock is generally less than the value of land and improvements. A detailed study of a major small ruminant producing area (Northeast - 67 -
Brazil) by Gutierrez et al., (1982) found sheep and goats comprised 4% of all farm assets (including value of land) while cattle represented 32% of total farm assets.
Capital needs for sheep and goats must be analyzed as capital needed (a) for inputs required to improve an existing system in which they are important, (b) for inputs needed to introduce them into systems where they currently are not important, and (c) for building up herds/ flocks of improved genotypes. Capital and credit needs must be related to the three major types of sheep and goat production systems towards which World Bank resources may be directed--ranching systems, trans- humant or nomadic systems, and small farm systems. Traditional com- mercial credit operations are generally applicable to the first system. However, repayment difficulties on many of the externally assisted ranching schemes have indicated that many problems still exist.
The problems inherent in supplying credit to sheep and goat producers, particularly those in the last two systems, are similar to those for smallholder credit problems in general. Institutions are not geared to meet the needs of the smallholder, commercial institutions are reluctant to make loans because administrative costs are high, there is often a lack of viable technologies needed to provide high rates of re- turn needed to repay the loan, the farmer often lacks the complementary inputs needed to achieve maximum efficiency of loan funds or loans in- kind, the fungibility problem where loan proceeds are used for other purposes, problems of loan security, and loan repayment difficulties.
There are three major types of capital assistance efforts for sheep and goats that require consideration by the World Bank. These include direct loans for stock, farm-level credit directed towards im- proving the on-farm production environment for small ruminants, and overall production system support activities (research, extension, land development, marketing infrastructure) directed towards the small rumi- nant sector as a whole.
Given the enormous diversity of small ruminant production systems described above and the great diversity of needs for system im- provement, no general statements can be made about priorities for capital assistance or about specific types of credit programs needed.
Note should be taken of the animal sharing schemes which have evolved in certain small farm systems of Southeast Asia. These systems have obviated the need for cash credits and may represent a viable form of small ruminant credit in other areas of the world.
Also, the earlier analysis indicated that one advantage of sheep and goats was their ability to reproduce rapidly and build up herd/flock numbers quickly. To some extent, this obviates the need for large amounts of capital for herd expansion. Another argument in favor of capital investments in production system support activities (research, extension, physical facilities, land development, marketing facilities) rather than in animal purchases is that many tropical sheep and goat breeds have good ability to respond to higher levels of feeding, management and health. - 68 -
However, credit or capital constraintscan pose a serious problem for many sheep and goat producers in the tropics because they tend to be the smaller, limited resource producersor landless laborers. The challenge is to design efficientcredit programs which can influence several constraintswhich impact on the overall produc- tivity of the system. This will generally require simultaneoussupport at several differentlevels (public institutions,farm level, marketing or processing)and the efficiency of capital allocated to these needs, rather than the absolute amount provided,will be a major constraint for improvementunder the often complex systems describedearlier.
5.3.2. ComparativeEconomics. Any studies on comparativeeconomics of ruminantsmust be treated with caution unless accompaniedby an in- tensive biologicalstudy since an underlying assumptionis that species easily substitute for another. Analysis needs to consider at least the followingaspects (many of which are treated in more detail in Section 4): o Feed selectivityand dietary preferences.
o Pre-weaningmortality rates--Thehigh reproduction rates of some sheep and goat breeds often leads to high rates of neo-natal mortality which tends to counterbalancethe advantage of high prolificacy.
O Sheep and goats are typically raised in subsistenceor semi-commercialsystems. In practice it is difficult to impute a monetary value to the major production in- puts or outputs.
While various procedures exist for dealing with these complex methodologicalissues, studies reported in the literatureseldom de- scribe the assumptionsused. Consequently,the results of the following studies must be treatedwith caution:
o India. In Himachal Pradesh State, Raut and Nadkarni (1974) reported that in mountainous,high altitude areas where both migratory and sedentarymanagement systems are used, the income derived from goats in both systems (11.8% to 72% of total income)was sub- stantiallyhigher than from sheep (10.0% to 25.6%).
O Another study in a semi-arid region of Rajasthan com- pared flocks of 30 Malpura sheep and 30 local meat goats maintained on free-range grazing on highly de- graded land. Over three years the sheep gave an average net profit of $11.34/year/sheepcompared to $142.08/year/goatdue to higher prolificacyand lower mortality (Swain et al. 1982) for the goats.
o Malaysia. Intensivemeat goat production in a mixed farming system with one buck and five does gave a net profit of $115/year over five years; exclusiveof interest on capital invested,cost of unpaid family - 69 -
labor and land rent (Devendra 1982b). The same author (1980) calculated that goats grazed on Guinea grass gave a gross margin per hectare of Malaysian $9.90 compared to $5.39 for cattle.
o Pakistan. Transhumant goat and sheep rearing by a landless family owning 10 does and 15 ewes gave a net family income of $291/year, about half of which was in cash, exclusive of interest on capital and family labor input (McDowell 1976).
O Kenya. A study reported that for farms of less than 1.6 ha, and without access to credit and inputs, dairy goats were less risky and more attractive than dairy cattle. Yet on larger holdings with access to credit and inputs, dairy cattle gave a higher return (Stotz 1982). Another study showed that relative enterprise profitability (dairy goats, Angora goats, meat goats, sheep, dairy cattle, and beef cattle) differed between ecological zones (De Boer et al., 1982) but within the same zones, goats gave higher returns per animal unit and per hectare.
o Niger. A comparative study (Swift 1979) of meat and milk offtake/kg live weight/year for ruminants kept under the same conditions showed that goats were most productive (0.21, 1.50), followed by sheep (0.12, 0.59), cattle (0.06, 0.43) and camels (0.04, 0.60). Particularly innovative is Swift's estimation of the returns to herding labor in terms of kg of millet. While millet production generates 0.4 to 0.9 kg/man- hour, livestock herding (average across all species) give a return of 1.7 kg of millet/man-hour.
o Brazil. Analysis by Gutierrez et al., (1982) indi- cated the rates of return to capital invested in sheep and goats was greater than for investments in cattle or cropping. It was concluded that technical factors limited the substitution of small ruminants for cattle or else small ruminant herds would have been growing at the expense of cattle and cropping, a trend not evident in this region.
In mixed crop-livestock systems, comparison should take a systems approach and estimate returns to labor from alternative livestock production systems (intensive vs. extensive), species, cropping alternatives, as well as off-farm and non-farm employment options. Since in many instances producers will be faced with allocating labor resources between several of these alternatives, a simple comparison of net returns between two or more species will not generally indicate the attractiveness of the livestock enterprises. - 70 -
5.3.3. Sociologicaland Cultural Aspects
In general, within the developing countries, sheep and goats have fewer socio-culturalbeliefs and constraintsattached to them than do large ruminants,particularly cattle. In Moslem countries, sheep are often preferred to goats because of their religious significance(Wilson 1982). Generally,goats have been raised by the poorest people in many societies and as a result, have low status (Gilles 1982). Also, goats have been blamed for environmentaldamage and transmittingsuch diseases as brucellosisand tuberculosis,resulting in a poor image (Galina et al. 1982). In some areas of India, sheep and goats are associatedwith lower social castes.
Sheep and goats possess important economic characteristics which are also reflected in socio/culturalaspects relating to asset re- serves, provisionof cash for schooling and special or unanticipatedoc- casions, and forms of exchange and sharing of animals to help provide income opportunitiesfor landless or land-scarceproducers. The dietary and religious factors are important in Muslim countries where two major Islamic holidays are traditionallycelebrated by slaughterof intact male sheep, although for the less fortunate,intact goats will suffice. Since these are movable feasts, adjustment of production systems to meet the periods of peak demand is very difficult, especially for small- holders with very limited ability to adjust feed resources and animal inventoriesto meet the market.
Efforts to introduce new species or new products meet with local resistancewhere producers are consuminga competingproduct. For example, in northern Mexico, a goat milk project found no local demand for goat milk and had to develop processing and external marketing links (Galina and Juarez 1982) to overcome local reliance on cow milk.
On the other hand, experience suggests that it has not been difficult to introducenew species such as dairy goats into systems where there was a critical shortage of milk and/or meat. In one study, the women recipientsused goat milk to feed their children (Stanton 1982).
Socioculturalconstraints must also be analyzed in terms of (a) constraints in making the necessary adjustmentsto increase produc- tion from existing systems where sheep and goats are important versus (b) constraintsapplicable where sheep and goats may be introduced into a system where they are not currently important. In the former case, the set of constraintsassociated with keeping goats and utilizing their products are not relevant and the socioculturalfactors must be con- sidered within the wider context of making changes in the overall pro- duction system or to specific sheep/goat productionpractices. The critical role of the production system in meeting subsistencefood requirements,the role and sources of risk, land use rights and resource sharing arrangementsmust all be considered.
When the focus is on potential socioculturalconstraints that could arise from a scheme to introduce sheep and goats into a non- - 71 -
traditional system, then the constraints analysis must focus instead on the potential producers underlying values towards the animals themselvestowards their products, and towards the potential adjustments in resource use, food consumption patterns, and daily work routines that will be required. Obviously, the sociocultural constraints are generally much more severe in the latter case (Noble and Nolan 1982).
5.3.4. Marketing System Constraints
Demand and supply characteristics of sheep and goat products marketed domestically are affected by culture, season, urban-rural mi- gration and production systems.
5.3.4.1. Demand. In many countries, sheep and goat meat is an im- portant source of animal protein to low income farmers throughout the year. Frequently, animals are butchered and consumed in the village-- never formally entering the marketing chain (Sandford 1982).
Sheep and goat meat demand is sometimes affected by seasonal factors such as those mentioned above for Islamic festivals. As another example, in West Africa small ruminant consumption increases at the end of the dry season when cattle are relatively scarce (Josserand and Ariza-Nino 1982). In an animal market in northern Ethiopia, the number of buyers varied by a factor of 25 over the year (Gabre Mariam and Hillman 1975). As a consequence, prices also fluctuate over the year and in some West African markets the holiday price for live sheep is double the normal price (Josserand and Ariza-Nino 1982). Sheep and goats often fill the dry season meat demand and generate cash to pur- chase grain. Producers are often reluctant to sell cattle during this season.
Most developing countries are experiencing significant popula- tion increases, rural-urban migrations and increases in income. As a consequence, the demand for sheep and goats is increasing in urban areas as rural migrants often prefer consumption of these meats.
Some sheep and goat purchases are made to redistribute animals between producers. For example, in Kano, Nigeria, the price of breeding females was 64% greater than comparable age males as producers were de- manding breeding stock to increase their own herd size (Josserand and Ariza-Nino 1982). In Niger, a market study showed that 45% of the buyers were also sheep and goat producers (Sandford 1982). In some cases, sales are also made to adjust animal inventories to desired sex and age composition.
There is generally little commercial demand for milk products from sheep and goats. With the possible exception of cheese, these pro- ducts are consumed by producing households, sold to neighbors, or the milk is given to young animals (Devendra 1971). An exception is Mexico, where commercial goat dairies have been established to process milk produced under intensive management (Fitzhugh 1981, Winrock 1977). - 72 -
5.3.4.2. Supply. The supply of sheep and goats should be more price responsive than cattle given the shorter reproductioncycle, but several phenomenaaffect market supply independentlyof price.
In both arid and tropical areas, where pronouncedseasonal ef- fects (winter and/or dry season) reduce the availabilityof feed, pro- ducers typically sell animals to equate herd size to the anticipated carrying capacity during the feed deficit period (Martin 1982). In addition,because sheep and goats are often used to accumulateand store assets to meet emergency cash needs, individual producersmay sell--at significantprice discounts whenever the need arises (Sandford 1982).
5.3.4.3. Marketing processes and functions. The marketing processes for sheep and goats and their products in developing countriesare best described as labor intensive and capital extensive. Relatively little capital is invested in equipment or facilitiesfor marketing, process- ing, and transportinganimals or products because sheep and goats are easily slaughteredby individualsand the products disposed of locally. The complexity of the marketing process, in terms of participantsand requirementsfor knowledge about prices and animal characteristics,de- pends largely on the distance between producers,markets, and final con- sumers.
In small countries like the Caribbean Islands, direct market- ing by the owner is common while in dispersed situations,a complex series of intermediariesis involved, often with highly specialized functions. The difference between the producer price and the final price paid by the consumer or butcher represents the higher cost of mar- keting dispersedpopulations of animals over long distances (Josserand and Ariza-Nino 1982, Sandford 1982, Sabrani and Knipscheer 1982). While differencesin price paid/animalmay vary significantlyin each transac- tion, studies have shown that price is set after taking into considerationanimal age, sex, breed, and weight (Sabrani and Knipscheer 1982).
Because the demand and supply of live animals can be quite erratic, particularlyin drier ecozones, there is a need for an open, heterogenousmarketing system which can quickly adjust to such changes. The resulting large price fluctuations,which are necessary in such sit- uations, are often used as a pretext by public authoritiesto intervene in the marketing system whereas such interventionare often undertaken to generate tax revenues or provide low cost animal products to urban consumers.
While direct government interventionmay not be necessary, there are benefits in periodicallyproviding producerswith information about prices in various markets and requiring the documentationof own- ership where theft is a problem (Sandford 1982). The government can also play a positive role in helping to provide orderlymarketing areas where sellers and buyers can gather and in providing capital for - 73 -
additional middlemen to enter the marketing process. Support for the improved utilizationof sheep and goat skins also representsa potential role for the public sector although the often dispersed slaughter of small ruminant'sby unskilled persons is a major economic constraint to quickly being able to gather up and process large numbers of skins soon after slaughter.When export of live animals or meat is considered,then a potentiallymuch larger role for the governmentneeds to be considered,particularly in quality control.
5.3.5. Institutionaland Policy Constraints
This section summarizes the institutionaland policy con- straints underlyingmany of the problems associatedwith low productivi- ty of sheep and goats and with specific sets of constraintsdiscussed earlier. These constraintsmay influence the production environment under which the farmer operates, may change price relationships,and may influence the generation of technologicalchange through research,edu- cation, and extensioninputs. Some major institutional/policycon- straints most likely to impact upon World Bank supportedactivities in the sheep and goat sector are now summarized.
Internationalagencies--complementary international support in research, training,and technology transfer activitieswill continue to be a constraint relative to activities associatedwith other livestock species (cattle, swine, poultry) or to crop productionprograms. De- spite some promising internationalwork on sheep and goat production and marketing problems in the tropics, the level of such support is very small, the ongoing work is not comprehensivein terms of disciplines, products,or ecozones,and coordinationwith other institutionswith capacity in these areas is lacking.
National research and extension support problems--Ingeneral, developing country support for agriculturalresearch is weak and frag- mented. Support for animal sciences has traditionallygone to veteri- nary medicine and very few production system oriented support programs have evolved. The level of capacity in sheep and goats research and ex- tension programs is either totally lacking or is given little emphasis. The approach recommendedin this paper will require some restructuring in the focus and organizationof groups working on sheep and goats under limited resource conditionsas well as considerableinvestment in train- ing and field testing of technology components.
Institutionalfocus--Current sheep and goat programs focus on the animal itself as the critical constraint. This is reflected in the proliferationof multiplicationschemes to distribute "improved"animals to producers,and in animal importationprograms to introduce superior genotypes. These approaches focus on the symptom, not the problem and reflect a severe institutionalconstraint.
Direct prohibitions--Anexample is the attempts to eliminate goats, which removes a low cost source of food for the rural and urban poor, and increases prices leading to illegal herd expansion. Animal quarantine regulationsand slaughteringrestrictions may also retard the - 74 -
potential of sheep and goats.
Price policy--In general, the direct impact of price controls on sheep and goat prices and productionhas not been major since it is very difficult to control the trading, slaughtering,and consumptionof sheep and goat's or their products. A more important indirect effect is the impact that low agriculturalprices have on general rural purchasing power which limits the ability of farm families to purchase sheep and goats or their products and also limits their ability to invest in and improve sheep and goat production.
Credit policy--Sincesheep and goats tend to be dispersed in small herds among many small producers, providing direct credit for sheep and goat programs can be difficult, administrativelycostly, and it is also difficult to keep track of the collateral. Innovativeap- proaches with a maximum of local level initiativeand administrationis called for if credit is seen to be a major constraint in specific situ- ations. - 75 -
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The terms of reference for this assessment call for recommen- dations on specific research activities and on development projects to be undertaken by the Bank. These recommendations were developed with emphasis on the following principal criteria:
o Sheep and goats in developing countries contribute primarily as an integral, but not dominant, component of production systems. Therefore, project and other activities should emphasize the systems approach, rather than sheep and goats as an independent commo- dity.
o Systems to be addressed should be those in which sheep and goats are currently of significant importance:
- Mixed species herds grazing dry rangelands.
- Small herds providing the primary source of food and income to landless peasants (e.g., India).
- Small mixed farms in which sheep and goats add value to crop residues and serve as a food and cash reserve.
Also included are those systems in which there is potential for a significant contribution by sheep and goats but where this potential remains unrealized because of one or more missing elements, such as seasonal feed shortages, health problems, suitable genotypes, and profitable markets. Examples include farming systems in the humid tropics using dual- purpose (meat, milk) goats to produce milk for family consumption plus slaughter goats for income, and stratified production systems in which breeding ani- mals based on range produce slaughter stock finished on better quality feeds (improved pasture, agricul- tural by-products, feed grain) for urban or export markets.
o Projects must be economically and technically feasi- ble; however, in many instances, principal returns would be in social values (improved nutrition and health of family; insurance against food or cash shortages).
o Finally, recommendations emphasize those activities to be implemented by the World Bank or those which the World Bank may indirectly influence through Interna- tional Centers and national institutions. - 76 -
6.1. Specific Recommendations
6.1.1. Increase professionaland institutionalawareness of the cur- rent importanceand potential value of sheep and goats to balanced agri- cultural productionin developing counries:
o The identificationand design stages of project devel- opment should incorporatespecific assessment of sheep and goats. This recommendationdoes not mean forcing sheep and goats into projects where they do not belong but only that they be given due consideration.
o The portfolio of Bank projects, includingrural devel- opment projects, should be reviewed in more detail than was possible in this study to learn if sufficient attentionhas been directed to sheep and goats, to identify further opportunities,and to benefit from previous experience.
o Developmentof comprehensivedatabases on sheep and goats should be supported. These databaseswould bring together in easily accessible format the avail- able informationon characteristicsof sheep and goats, production systems and market requirementsin developingcountries. A file of technical personnel with interest and experience in sheep and goats should be compiled and regularly updated.
The primary purpose of these data bases would be to organize available information(good starts have been made by institutionssuch as ILCA and Winrock) so that it would be readily available to support project de- sign and implementation.
The process of data base developmentwill also identify major gaps to be filled by research, training and developmentprojects and will provide a means of monitoring the success of these projects in filling gaps.
o Review of government policy required to assess net im- pact on small ruminant sector. There is a need to determine if a specific policy towards small ruminants exists; how general agriculturaland livestocksector policies Impact upon the small ruminant sector; the effectivenessand impact of price policies on in- centives for producing and marketing small ruminants; the institutionalsetting for provisionof research, extension,and credit services to the sector; the types of direct prohibitionsgoverning small ruminants and the impact upon producers;and credit policies directed towards the livestock sector and the small ruminant sub-sector. - 77 -
6.1.2. Because relativelylittle research has been conductedwith sheep and goats in developing countries,there are major gaps in know- ledge and technologynecessary to formulate successfuldevelopment plans. Results from research in developed countries can serve on a stopgap basis; however, research on the followingpriority problems should best be done with the types of animals under the environmental conditions to which results will be applied.
Biological research priorities include:
o Provisionof adequate feed supply throughoutproduct- ion year.
Develop cropping systems which supply animal feed requirementswithout reduction in food or cash crop yield (e.g., relaying forage legumes into food crops toward end of their growing season to provide a standing feed crop during dry season);
Harvest and feed preservationstrategies to maximize nutritivevalue of crop residues (e.g., drying tech- nology for early harvestedmaize so that stover can also be harvested early while nutritivevalue is high);
Identificationof crops which when intercroppedor rotated to increase food crop yield as well as providingfeed for animals;
Evaluation of seasonal differencesin types of range vegetation selected by sheep, goats, cattle and other ruminants to provide basis for design of optimum ratios of species in mixed herds on a productionyear basis.
o Improve health.
Develop prevention/curefor major diseases affecting sheep and goats in tropics (e.g., trypanosomiasis, pleuropneumonia,peste des petits ruminants)probably to be implementedat regional or national level.
Develop herd health programs acceptable to producers (low cost, low labor) including parasite control. Attention should be given to issues such as the short-termvs long-term consequences(good and bad) of farm level tick eradication.
o Improve genotype.
Characterizenative types of sheep and goats for pro- duction and fitness traits and determine the extent to which differencesare due to additive and nonadditive genetic effects. - 78 -
Evaluate strategies for combiningthe superior traits of different breeds with particularattention to breeds which have evolved in the tropics (e.g., proli- fic Caribbeanhair sheep and Indian dairy goat breeds).
Evaluate the apparent advantages and disadvantagesof sheep and goats vs cattle to aid choice of appropriate species for production conditions on objectivebases rather than subjective opinion.
Socioeconomicresearch priorities include:
o Production and marketing economics.
Evaluate the potential costs and benefits of biologi- cal and technical interventionsto sheep and goat pro- duction; including extent of enterprisecompetition (crops vs livestock)within production system, and opportunitycosts for labor and capital.
Estimate the current and potentialdemand for sheep and goat products at the local, national and export trade levels with considerationto competitionfrom other animal products.
Evaluate the economic feasibilityof developing new market infrastructureto process and distribute sheep and goat products.
Evaluate the impact of national agriculturalpolicies, especiallynational livestock policies,on sheep and goat production and marketing economics. Policies for analysis include product price controls, input pricing, land policies, taxation,rural credit, ex- change rates, trade restrictions,and slaughtering regulations.
O Sociologicalfactors.
Evaluate goals of producers and their attitudes toward acceptance of new technologies,their willingness to change traditionalpractices and to invest labor and capital in improvementsto sheep and goat components.
Identify factors which may limit acceptance of prac- tices such as selling young stock to be fed in a stratified system.
O Policy research.
To support the policy needs relating to sheep and - 79 -
goats that were outlined earlier, some specific policy analysis is needed to support productionand marketing programs for sheep and goats. At a minimum, infor- mation is needed on demand and supply characteristics for the primary products such as meat, milk, skins, and fiber. For meat, in particular,cross-price and income elasticitiesof demand are critical if large increases in output are anticipated. Seasonal effects on demand and supply are often importantfor small ruminants and quantitativeestimates of these factors are needed for policy purposes. Research on price policy for the agriculturaland livestocksectors is critical in identifyingneeds and constraintsfor sec- tor developmentstrategies. The welfare impacts of direct prohibitionsneed research as do larger ques- tions relating to land use and resource conservation and the potential role of small ruminantsin these programs.
Systems research prioritiesrefer to the need for research to synthesize and evaluate comprehensivepackages of technologyand knowledge:
o Use of computer models as a relativelyinexpensive method of screeningthe wide range of interventionsto determine those most likely to work in the field.
o Test promising interventionsunder actual production conditions to ensure they fit the environmentand producersneeds.
It is envisioned that the Bank will address these research prioritiesthrough financial support to existing research centers, through loans to upgrade national research capabilities,and, in the case of socioeconomicand systems research priorities,incorporating a research componentwithin development projects to utilize data produced and to monitor progress.
6.1.3. Training with emphasis on sheep and goats is needed to acquaint decision makers with the potentialfor these species and to provide qualified professionalsto carry out research, extensionand developmentactivities. Priorities for training activitiesare:
o Shortcoursesin topics such as sheep and goat manage- ment in extensiveand intensive systems, administra- tion of credit to producers,market development.
o Academic training of developing country nationals in both biological and socioeconomicdisciplines in which research program involves sheep and goat production and marketing, preferablywith focus on developing countries. Trainees should return with knowledge and special interest in sheep and goats. - 80 -
Because research and developmentactivities should focus on sheep and goats as part of agriculturalsystems, training activitiesshould also incorporateinterdisciplinary approach. Periodic workshops on inter- disciplinaryresearch and developmentwill reinforcethe attention to this approach among personnel involved in these projects. Workshops and shortcoursesshould be conducted in developing countries. Assignment of responsibilityfor design and conduct of workshops to a professionalin- stitutionwould maintain continuity and permit efficientmodification and restructuringto suit needs of individual audiences. Participants could include groups of producersas well as agriculturalprofessionals (research,extension, administration).
6.1.4. Priorities for developmentactivities focus on incorporatinga sheep and goat improvementcomponent within the frameworkof agricul- tural systems or rural developmentprojects. As discussed previously, priorities for developmentare those systems where sheep and goats are currently importantor where they have substantialpotential. These in- clude mixed species herds grazing nonarablelands and small mixed crop- animal farms. Other opportunitiesinclude use of small ruminants in crop-based systemswhere they control competitivevegetation in plan- tation crops (coconuts,oil palms, rubber, sisal, etc.) and in heavily populated, intensivelycultivated areas.
In general, developmentpriorities follow those listed in pre- vious sectionswhere attention was drawn to incorporatingawareness of sheep and goats in the project design stage and to conduct research needed to provide knowledge and technologyto be used in development. In addition to these previously discussed priorities,development of the sheep and goat componentwill require attention to the following:
Credit. Credit must be considered as part of an overall capi- tal assistance package which may provide financial inputs for overall support of the small ruminant sector, on-farm improvementsto support small ruminants,and for purchases of animals. Detailed analysis is needed of the effectivenessof World Bank support to each type of activity. The provisionof credit to producersmust consider the type of production system. Increasingcredit for small ruminants under com- mercial ranching systemsmay be straightforwardand involve commercial or governmentbanks directly. In transhumant/nomadicor small farm sys- tems, special attentionmust be given to credit needs and the effective provisionof credit based on past experiences. Credit will likely be required if the last two groups of producersare to utilize new tech- nology or superior breeding stock. Most producersof sheep and goats are poor with limited resources for use as collateral;sheep and goats are easily moved and difficult to identify. These factors limit the security of loans. Credit procedures are needed which fit the needs of producersand are reasonably secure. Possible options are provisionof breeding stock on animal shares (as in the Fondos Ganaderoswhich have proven successfulin Colombia and elsewherein Latin America).
Establishmentof sheep and goat seedstockproduction units. If proven, superior local breeds are available, it may be possible to move directly to a multiplication/disseminationphase. More generally, - 81 - evaluation of geneticmerit of local and introduced stocks will be needed under a common environment. This is best carried out under a research station environmentwith special attentionrequired for health problems which often arise when sheep and goats are kept under high stocking rates. Next, on-farm evaluation should be carried out if at all possible. To ensure reasonable reliabilityof data, larger farmers should be used if possible. These farmers may then be able to assume the role of seedstockmultiplication for distributionto the target population of producers. These commercial producersmay require additionalresources and technical assistance to fulfill this role. An alternativeapproach is for government stations to provide selected rams/bucks to villages or other types of producer groups on a sale or loan scheme. These rotating studs serve as the basis for upgrading local herds/flocks.
If none of the above options are viable for a specific country or region due to a lack of qualified commercial producers, shortagesof facilitiesand a lack of trained personnel,the direct support to the public sector to implementmultiplication schemes may be necessary. Previous experiencewith this approach for beef cattle, dairy cattle, and water buffalo in developing countries has not been encouraging,how- ever, and all efforts should be made to learn from past problems, treat these as long-term efforts, and provide adequate trainingand technical assistance.
Related to the above activities is the need to place more em- phasis on identifyingand transferringsuperior stocks which have evolved under tropical conditions;e.g., the previously cited breeds of hair sheep and Indian dairy goats. If genetic improvementis to be im- plemented on a large scale, commercial sources of performancetested disease-freestocks for export will have to be developed either in the exporting country or in some intermediatesite such as an island which does not have a substantiallivestock populationat risk from possible disease introduction. - 82 -
7. REVIEW OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SHEEP AND COATS
7.1 Introduction
An attempt was made to assess sheep and goat research, train- ing, development,and credit programs. The objectiveswere to analyze (a) the amounts of resources being invested, (b) where and for what pur- pose these investmentswere being made, (c) what types of production systems involvedand (d) the relative mix between research, training, development,and credit types of projects.
The data were assembled from literature searches (e.g., Sands and McDowell 1979), requests for project informationfrom both funding and implementationagencies, from personal knowledge of major programs, and review of World Bank documents in Washington. The limitationsof data gathered preclude a comprehensive,balanced picture of activities involvingsheep and goats. The following limitationsshould be kept in mind regarding the discussion which follows:
7.2 Limitations
o The projects reviewed are a limited sub-sample,and the degree of limitationis not well known.
o World Bank projects are probably overrepresentedrela- tive to those of other institutionsbecause the re- search team had better access to World Bank documents and did not have time or resources to carry out simi- lar desk studies of project documents from USAID, United Nations DevelopmentProgram, F.A.O., Regional DevelopmentBanks, InternationalResearch Centers or developing country institutions.
o Even where project documentswere availableor where project summarieswere submitted by correspondents, informationwas usually lacking on funding (particu- larly local or counterpartfunding), staffing,prog- ress to date, specific production systems impacted upon, and the role of sheep and goats in these production systems.
o Bilateralaid projects are poorly represented. The authors are aware of sheep and goat programs supported by West Germany, Netherlands,Australia, New Zealand, and France, but obtaining adequate informationon these activities would have required visits to the specific donor agencies and/or project sites.
o Data on activities by Private Voluntary Organizations (PVO's)were not collected although the authors were again aware of several activities sponsored by PVO's in support of sheep and goats in developingcoun- tries. - 83 -
o In many cases involvementof sheep and goats in proj- ects is an incidentalpart of a larger package focused on crops, other livestock species,general credit sup- port for agriculturalor integratedrural develop- ment. Often this involvementis not describedin project documentationor, therefore,in our s=mmary.
o Project data from some major producingcountries (China,Mongolia) were not availablefor the analy- sis.
Despite these limitations,the data set is included here as a first attempt to assemble such information,which may stimulatemore comprehensiveefforts. Also, the data do indicate certain important patterns of assistance to the sheep and goat sector.
7.3 Results
Regional summaries of the 80 projects from which conclusions could be drawn are presented in Appendix Tables 9-13. A summary based on groupingsby productionsystem, project objective,and species em- phasis is presented in table 7.3.1. Recognizingthe limitationsof data, the followingobservations can be made:
o A considerableemphasis is being placed on mixed crop-animalsystems. However, many of these projects involvemixed commercial systems in the more developed countries, such as Chile, Argentina,Uruguay, Romania, Yugoslavia, Spain, and Portugal. Many of the animal- based system projects also provided support to commer- cial producerswithin these same groups of countries.
o Despite the fairly large number of projects listed under research and training,only a few projects had those objectives as their primary focus and most re- search and training objectiveswere in a supportive role to developmentor credit activities.
o Awareness of the need to take better advantage of the potential of sheep and goats--especiallyas a means to improve the productivityof poor agriculturistsin developingcountries--is reflected in major research initiativesundertaken by ILCA in Mali, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya (ILCA 1980). The first CollaborativeResearch Support Program (CRSP) funded by USAID under Title XII is supportingresearch on small ruminants in Indonesia,Kenya, Morocco, Brazil, and Kenya; USAID funding is $11 million for eight years plus approximately$6 million each from participatingU.S. institutionsand host countries. In addition, several UNDP/FAO Sheep and Goat DevelopmentProjects and national research institutes are working primarilyon sheep and goats. However, Table 7.3.1. Summary of Projects by Production System Focus, Primary Objective and Species Focus*
Production System Focus Primary Focus Primary Species Focus:
Primary External Sheep & Funding Source Animal Based Crop Based Mixed System R D C T Sheep Goats Goats Other
IBRD/IDA 13 7 30 5 37 21 14 2 -- 45 o U.S.AID 5 -- 6 7 -- -- 6 1 -- 6 2 UN Organizations 2 -- 4 1 6 1 4 2 1 4 -- Others, including only local funding 8 12 10 10 1 8 1 7 4 4
TOTALS 28 7 52 23 53 22 32 6 8 14 51
*Totals exceed total number of projects summarized since many projects had a multiple focus. Source: Appendix Tables 9-13. - 85 -
other types the vast majority of projects had beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine or poultry as their primary focus. None of the IBRD/IDA projects reviewed had primary emphasis on goats and the two projects with primary emphasis on sheep were on large commercial systems in South America.
o A cursory review of the number of projects and, where available, the amounts of external funding, indicated that little emphasis was placed on research and train- ing, and of that limited support, most was for proj- ects in Europe and the more developed countries of South America and North Africa. This subsample of projects included little research support in Central America and the Caribbean, the less developed coun- tries of South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia.
If this lack of project-specific information is seen as a con- straint in terms of efficient programming of development assistance or in terms of implementation of specific conclusions of this report, then the following would be essential to an improved analysis:
o list of bilateral programs
o list of World Bank programs supporting research
o list of support programs from International Centers
o full list of FAO/UNDP/WHO/IAEA/APHCA projects
o list of projects supported by private voluntary agen- cies
o list of national programs
o estimated local counterpart support for the above
o clear distinction of project focus, species emphasis, and production systems.
APPENDIX TABLES - 88 -
Appendix Table 1. Goat Breed Types Classified According to Region of Origin and Purpose
Purpose
Name Origin Meat Milk Fleece
Agrigento West Europe 2 1 Anatolian Black North Africa 1 2 Anglo-Nubian West Europe 2 1 Angora North Africa 2 1 Appenzell West Europe 2 1 Apulian West Europe 2 1 Assam Hill India 1 Baladi North Africa 3 1 2 Baluchi North Africa 3 2 1 Bantu Central & Southern Africa 1 Barbari India, North Africa 2 1 Bari North Africa 2 1 Beetal North Africa 2 1 Bengal North Africa, India 1 Boer Central & Southern Africa 1 2 British Alpine West Europe 2 1 British Saanen West Europe 2 1 British Toggenburg West Europe 2 1 Chamois Coloured West Europe 2 1 Chaper North Africa 1 Cheghu India 2 1 Criollo Middle America-Tropical, South America-Tropical 1 Damani North Africa 2 1 Damascus North Africa 2 1 Dera Din Panah North Africa 3 1 2 Dole West Europe 2 1 Don USSR 3 2 1 Dutch Toggenburg West Europe 2 1 Dutch White West Europe 2 1 French Alpine West Europe 2 1 Gaddi India 2 1 German Improved Fawn West Europe, East Europe 2 1 German Improved White West Europe, East Europe 2 1 Granada West Europe 2 1 Grisons Striped West Europe 2 1 Gujarati India 2 1 3 Himalayan North Africa, India 2 1 Improved North Russian USSR 2 1 Jamnapari India 2 1 - 89 -
Appendix Table 1 (cont'd)
Purpose
Name Origin Meat Milk Fleece
Kaghani . North Africa 2 Kamori North Africa 2 1 3 Kashmiri India 2 1 Katjang South & SoutheastAsia (except India) I Kirgiz USSR 2 3 1 Leri North Africa 1 2 3 Ma China, Mongolia 1 2 Malaga West Europe 2 1 Mingrelian USSR 2 1 Murcian West Europe 2 1 North Russian USSR 2 1 Nubian North Africa 2 1 Osmanabad India 1 2 Philippine South & SoutheastAsia (except India) 1 Poitou West Europe 2 1 Red Bosnian East Europe 2 1 Red Sokoto Central & Southern Africa 2 1 Saanen West Europe 2 1 Salt Range North Africa 3 1 2 Sirli North Africa 2 1 Sirohi India 2 1 Small East Africa Central & Southern Africa 1 Somali (Galla) Central & Southern Africa 1 Soviet Mohair USSR 2 1 Surti India 2 1 Syrian Mountain North Africa 1 2 3 Tanyang China, Mongolia 1 Telemark West Europe 2 1 Thori North Africa 1 2 Toggenburg West Europe 2 1 Valais Blackneck West Europe 1 2 Verzasca West Europe 2 1 West African Dwarf Central & Southern Africa 1 West African Long- Legged North Africa 2 1 Zaraibi North Africa 2 1
Source: Mason (1969). Appendix Table 2. Sheep Breed Types Classified According to Region of Origin, Coat Type, Tail Type, and Purpose
Typea Purpose Type Purpose
Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt
Abyssinian Central & Azov Tsigai USSR MW MT 2 1 Southern Badano West Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Africa H FT 1 2 Balbas USSR CW FT 1 2 3 Algarve Churro West Europe CW MT 1 2 Balkhi North Africa Algerian Arab North Africa Mid East CW FR 3 2 1 Mid East CW MT 1 2 Baluchi North Africa Altai USSR FW MT 2 1 Mid East CW FT 1 2 3 Altamura West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Barbados Blackbelly Middle America Amasya Herik North Africa Tropical H MT 1 Mid East CW SFT 2 3 1 Bardoka East Europe CW MT 2 1 3 American Merino North America FW MT 2 1 Barki North Africa American Mid East CW FT 2 3 1 Rambouillet North America FW MT 2 1 Basque-Bearn West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 American Tunis North America CW FT I Bellary India CW MT 2 1 Apulian Merino West Europe FW-MW MT 2 3 1 Beni Ahsen North Africa Arabi North Africa Mid East CW-MW MT 2 1 Mid East CW FT 1 2 Beni Guil North Africa Aragon West Europe MW MT 1 2 Mid East CW MT 1 2 Argentine Merino South America Berber North Africa Temperate FW MT 2 1 Mid East CW MT 1 2 Arles Merino West Europe FW MT 2 3 1 Bergamo West Europe CW MT 1 2 Askanian USSR FW MT 2 1 Bhadarwah India CW ST 3 1 2 Aure-Campan West Europe MW MT 1 2 Bhakarwal India CW FT 2 1 Ausimi North Africa Bibrik North Africa Mid East CW FT 2 1 Mid East CW FT 2 1 Australian Biella West Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Merino Oceania FW MT 2 1 Bikaneri India CW MT 2 1 Avranchin West Europe LW MT 1 2 Bizet West Europe MW LT 1 2 Awassi North Africa Blackhead Persian Central & Mid East CW FT 1 2 3 Southern Azerbaijan Africa H FR 1 Mountain Black Merino West Europe FW MT 3 2 1 Merino USSR FW MT 2 1 Black Welsh Mountain West Europe MW MT 2 1
aSee legend at end of table. Appendix Table 2 (cont'd)
Type Purpose Type Purpose
Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt
Blanc du Massif Columbia North America MW MT 2 1 Central West Europe MW MT 1 3 2 Comiso West Europe CW MT 3 1 2 Bluefaced Common Albanian East Europe CW MT 3 1 2 Leicester West Europe LW MT 2 1 Corriedale Oceania MW MT 2 1 Bluefaced Maine West Europe LW MT 1 2 Corsican West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Border Leicester West Europe LW MT 2 1 Contentin West Europe LW MT 1 2 Bosnian Mountain East Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Cyprus Fat- North Africa Boulonnais West Europe LW MT 1 2 Tailed Mid East CW FT 3 1 2 Bozakh USSR CW FT 1 2 3 Dagestan Mountain USSR MW MT 1 2 Braganca Daglic North Africa Galician West Europe CW MT 1 2 Mid East CW SFT 2 3 1 Brazilian Dala West Europe W MT 2 1 Woolless South America Dales-Bred West Europe CW MT 2 1 Tropical H fT 1 2 Dalmatian-Karst East Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Buryat USSR CW SFT 1 2 Damani North Africa I Calabrian West Europe CW MT 3 2 1 Mid East CW ST 3 1 2 1° Companian Barbary West Europe CW-MW SFT 2 1 3 Danube Merino East Europe FW MT 3 2 1 Campanica West Europe MW MT 1 3 2 Dartmoor West Europe LW MT 1 2 Canadian Darvaz USSR CW SET 2 1 Corriedale North America MW MT 2 1 Deccani India CW ST 2 1 Castilian West Europe MW MT 1 2 3 Degeres USSR W FR, SFT I Caucasian USSR FW MT 2 1 Derbyshire Central Pyrenean West Europe MW MT 1 2 Gritstone West Europe MW MT 2 1 Chanothar India CW MT 3 2 1 Devon Charmoise West Europe SW MT 1 2 Closewool West Europe SW MT 2 1 Cher Berrichon West Europe MW MT 1 2 Devon Longwoolled West Europe LW MT 2 1 Cherkasy USSR CW LT 1 2 D'Man North Africa Cheviot West Europe MW MT 1 2 Mid East CW LT I Chios North Africa Dorper Central & Mid East CW-MW LFT 2 1 3 Southern Churro do Campo West Europe CW MT 1 2 Africa H-CW MT I Chushka USSR Fur LT 3 2 1 Dorset Down West Europe SW MT 2 1 Clun Forest West Europe SW MT 2 1 Dorset Horn West Europe SW MT 2 1 Doukkala North Africa Mid East CW MT 2 1 Appendix Table 2 (cont'd)
Type Purpose Type Purpose
Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt
Dubrovnik East Europe MW MT 3 2 1 Greek Zackel West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 East Friesian West Europe Grozny USSR FW MT 2 1 East Europe MW MT 2 1 Gujarati India CW MT 3 2 1 Edilbaev USSR CW FR 1 2 Gunib USSR CW FT 2 1 Entre Minho e Gurez India CW ST 3 2 1 Douro West Europe MW MT 2 1 Hampshire Down West Europe SW MT 2 1 Estonian Dark- Han-Yang China, headed USSR SW MT 1 2 Mongolia MW-CW FT 2 1 Exmoor Horn West Europe MW MT 2 1 Harnai North Africa Finnish Mid East CW FT 2 1 Landrace West Europe W ST 2 1 Hashtnagri North Africa Frabosa West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Mid East CW FT 2 3 1 French Alpine West Europe MW MT 1 2 Hassan India CW MT 2 1 French Black- Hejazi North Africa headed West Europe SW MT 1 2 Mid East H SFT 1 Fulani Central & Herdwick West Europe CW MT 2 1 Southern Hissar USSR CW FR 1 2 Africa H MT I Hissar Dale USSR SW MT 2 1 Galway West Europe LW MT 1 2 Hungarian Combing Garfagnana West Europe W MT 2 1 3 Wool Merino East Europe FW MT 3 2 1 Georgian Finewool Hungarian Mutton Fat-tailed USSR FW FT 1 2 Merino East Europe FW MT 1 2 Georgian Semi- Hu-Yang China, finewool USSR MW FT 1 2 Mongolia CW SFT 3 1 2 German Black- Icelandic West Europe W ST 3 2 1 headed Mutton West Europe SW MT 1 2 Ile-de-France West Europe MW MT 1 2 German Heath West Europe CW ST 2 1 Indre Berrichon West Europe SW MT 1 2 German Mutton Iraq Kurdi North Africa Merino West Europe Mid East CW FT 1 3 2 East Europe FW MT 1 2 Island Pramenka East Europe CW-MW MT 2 3 1 German White- Istrian Milk East Europe CW MT 2 1 3 headed Mutton West Europe W MT 1 2 Jaidara USSR CW FR 2 1 Gorki USSR SW MT 1 2 Jalauni India CW MT 2 1 Appendix Table 2 (cont'd)
Type Purpose Type Purpose
Name Origin Coat Tail. Meat Milk Wool Pelt Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt
Kaghani North Africa Kuibyshev USSR LW MT 1 2 Mid East CW ST 3 1 2 Kuka North Africa Karabakh USSR CW FT 1 2 3 Mid East CW ST 3 2 1 Karachaev USSR CW LFT 2 3 1 Lacaune West Europe MW MT 2 1 3 Karakachan East Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Lacho West Europe CW MT 3 1 2 Karakul USSR fur FT 3 2 1 Lamon West Europe CW MT 2 1 Karayaka North Africa Langhe West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Mid East CW LT 2 3 1 Latvian Darkheaded USSR SW MT 1 2 Karnah North Africa Lecce West Europe CW MT 3 1 2 Mid East SW ST 2 1 Leicester West Europe LW MT 2 1 Karnobat East Europe W MT 3 1 2 Leine West Europe W MT 2 1 Kazakh Arkhar- Lezgian USSR CW LFT 1 2 Merino USSR FW MT 1 2 Libyan Barbary North Africa Kazakh Fat- USSR Mid East CW FT 1 3 2 rumped China, Lika East Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Mongolia CW FR 2 1 Limousin West Europe MW MT 1 3 2 Kazakh Finewool USSR FW MT 1 2 Lincoln Longwool West Europe LW MT 2 1 Kent or Romney Lipe East Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Marsh West Europe LW MT 2 1 Liski USSR LW MT 1 2 Kerry Hill West Europe SW MT 2 1 Lithuanian Khurasani North Africa Blackheaded USSR SW MT 1 2 Mid East CW FT 1 3 2 Llanwenog West Europe SW MT 1 2 Kirgiz Fat-rumped USSR CW FR 2 1 Lohi North Africa Kirgiz Finewool USSR PW MT 2 1 Mid East CW ST 2 3 1 Kivircik North Africa Lonk West Europe CW MT 2 1 Mid East Lot Causses West Europe CW MT 1 2 West Europe CW-MW MT 1 2 3 Lourdes West Europe MW MT 1 2 Kosovo East Europe CW MT 1 2 Lowicz East Europe LW MT 2 1 Krasnoyarsk USSR FW MT 2 1 Macina Central 6 Krivovir East Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Southe i a Kuche China, Africa CW LT 2 1 Mongolia CW ST, SFT 2 3 1 Malich USSR fur FT 3 2 1 Kuchugury USSR CW LFT 1 2 Mancha West Europe MW MT 3 1 2 Appendix Table 2 (cont'd)
Type Purpose Type Purpose
Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt
Mandya India H ST I Pagliarola West Europe CW-MW MT 3 2 1 Manech West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Palas Merino East Europe FW MT 2 1 Masai Central & Panama North America MW MT 2 1 Southern Pelibuey (West Middle America Africa H SFT-FR I African) Tropical H MT I Massa West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Pelo do Boi South America Maure North Africa, Tropical H MT 1 Mid East h MT I Pirot East Europe CW MT 1 2 Mazekh USSR CW FT 1 2 3 Piva East Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Mikhnov USSR CW LT 1 2 Pleven Blackhead East Europe CW MT 3 1 2 Miranda Galician West Europe CW MT 1 2 Polish Heath East Europe CW ST 3 1 2 Mondego West Europe CW MT 1 2 3 Polish Merino East Europe FW MT 2 1 Mongolian China, Polish Zackel East Europe CW MT 4 2 1 3 Mongolia CW FT 2 3 1 Polwarth Oceania MW MT 2 1 Mytilene West Europe CW LFT 2 1 3 Portuguese Merino West Europe FW MT 3 2 1 Navajo North America CW MT 2 1 Prealpes du Sud West Europe SW MT 1 2 Nejdi North Africa Precoce West Europe FW MT 2 1 Mid East CW LFT 2 1 Priangan (Garut) South, Nellore India H ST 1 Southeast Asia CW ST I New Zealand Racka East Europe CW LT 2 1 3 Romney Marsh Oceania LW MT 2 1 Radnor West Europe SW MT 1 2 North Caucasus Rahmani North Africa Mutton-Wool USSR MW MT 1 2 Mid East CW FT 2 1 North Country Rakhshani North Africa Cheviot West Europe MW MT 1 2 Mid East CW FT 3 2 1 Northern Sudanese North Africa Rambouillet West Europe FW MT 2 1 Mid East H LT 2 1 Red Karaman North Africa Old Norwegian West Europe W ST 2 1 Mid East CW MT 2 3 1 Oparino USSR W MT 1 2 Reshetilovka USSR CW LT I Ovce Polje East Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Rhon West Europe Oxford Down West Europe SW MT 2 1 East Europe W MT 2 1 Pag Island East Europe MW ST 3 2 1 Rila Monastery East Europe W MT 3 1 2 Romanov USSR CW ST 3 2 1 Appendix Table 2 (cont'd)
Type Purpose Type Purpose
Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt
Rough Fell West Europe CW MT 2 1 South African Central & Russian Long- Merino Southern tailed USSR CW LT 1 2 Africa FW MT 2 1 Russian Northern South Devon West Europe LW MT 2 1 Short-tailed USSR CW ST 3 2 1 Southdown West Europe SW MT 2 1 Ryeland West Europe SW MT 2 1 South Ural USSR FW MT 2 1 Rygja West Europe SW MT 2 1 South Wales Saloia West Europe MW MT 3 1 2 Mountain West Europe W MT 2 1 Salsk Finewool USSR FW MT 2 1 Soviet Merino USSR FW MT 2 1 Saraja USSR CW FR 2 1 Spanish Churro West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Sardinian West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Spanish Merino West Europe FW MT 2 1 Sar Planina East Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Stavropol USSR FW MT 2 1 Savoy West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Steinschaf West Europe CW MT 1 2 Scottish Blackface West Europe CW MT 2 1 Stogos East Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Segura West Europe MW MT 1 2 Suffolk West Europe SW MT 2 1 Serra da Estrela West Europe MW MT 3 1 2 Sumava East Europe CW LT 2 1 Shetland West Europe MW ST 2 1 Svishtov East Europe CW LT 2 1 Shkodra East Europe CW MT 3 2 1 Svrljig East Europe CW MT 1 2 3 Shropshire West Europe SW MT 2 1 Swaledale West Europe CW MT 2 1 Shumen East Europe CW MT 1 Swedish Landrace West Europe W ST 2 1 Sicilian West Europe CW MT 2 1 3 Swiss Black- Sicilian Barbary West Europe CW,MW LFT 2 3 1 Brown Mountain West Europe SW MT 2 1 Sinkiang Finewool China, Swiss Brownheaded Mongolia FW MT 2 1 Mutton West Europe SW MT 1 2 Sjenica East Europe CW MT 1 2 3 Swiss White Alpine West Europe SW MT 1 2 Skopelos West Europe MW MT 2 1 3 Swiss White Sokolka USSR fur LT 3 2 1 Mountain West Europe SW MT 1 2 Solcava East Europe CW-MW MT 1 3 2 Tadle North Africa Sologne West Europe SW MT 1 2 Mid East CW MT 1 2 Somali Central & Tadmit North Africa Southern Mid Est MW MT 1 2 Africa H FR 1 Tajik USSR W FR 2 1 Sopravissana West Europe FW-MW MT 3 2 1 Talavera West Europe NW MT 3 1 2 Appendix Table 2 (cont'd)
Type Purpose Type Purpose
Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt Name Origin Coat Tail Meat Milk Wool Pelt
Tanganyika Central & Turcana East Europe CW LT 3 1 2 Long-tailed Southern LFT, SFT Turkmen Fat-rumped USSR CW MT 2 1 Africa H or LT I Tushin USSR CW LFT,SFT 2 3 1 Tan-yang China, Tyrol Mountain West Europe CW MT 2 1 Mongolia CW SFT 2 1 3 Valachian East Europe CW LT 2 1 3 Targhee North America MW MT 2 1 Valais Blacknose West Europe CW MT 2 1 Teeswater West Europe LW MT 2 1 Varese West Europe CW MT 1 2 Telengit USSR CW SFT 1 2 Velay Black West Europe MW LT 1 2 Texel West Europe LW ST 1 2 Voloshian USSR CW LT-LFT 1 2 Thal North Africa Vyatka USSR FW MT 1 2 Mid East CW MT 2 1 Waziri North Africa Thibar North Africa Mid East CW FT 2 1 Mid East MW MT 2 1 Welsh Mountain West Europe W MT 2 1 Thones-Marthod West Europe CW MT 1 2 Wensleydale West Europe LW MT 2 1 Tibetan China, West African Dwarf Central & Mongolia CW ST 2 1 (Forest) Southern Tirahi North Africa Africa H MT 1 Mid East CW FT 2 1 White Dorper Central & Transbaikal Southern Finewool USSR FW MT 2 1 Africa H MT 1 Tsigai East Europe MW-CW MT 3 2 1 White Face Tuareg Central & Dartmoor West Europe LW MT 1 2 Southern White Raraman North Africa Africa H MT 1 Mid East CW MT 1 2 3 Tuj North Africa White Klementina East Europe W MT 3 2 1 Mid East CW SFT 1 3 2 White South Tung-yang China, Bulgarian East Europe W MT 3 2 1 Mongolia CW-MW FT 1 2 Wicklow Mountain West Europe SW MT 1 Tunisian Barbary North Africa Wiltshire Horn West Europe H MT I Mid East CW FT 1 2 Zante West Europe CW MT 1 3 2 Zemmour North Africa Mid East CW MT 1 2 Zeta Yellow East Europe CW MT 2 1 3
Legend: Coat Type: H-hairy; W-wooled; FW-finewooled; SW-shortwooled; Tail type: ST-short tail; MT-medium length, thin tail; LT-long thin tail; MW-medium wooled; LW-longwooled; CW-coarsewooled. FR-fat rump; LFT-long fat tial; SFT-short fat tail; FT-fat tail. - 97 -
Appendix Table 3. Farmgate Prices of Cattle and Small Ruminants in Africa for 1962, 1966, and 1970 (price per kg live weight,local currency)
Country Species 1962 1966 1970
Angola Cattle 5.0 6.75 4.25 Goats 5.0 3.45 4.43 Cattle/goats 1.0 1.96 0.96
Cameroon1 Cattle - 0.06 0.064 Small ruminants - 0.043 0.053 Cattle/small ruminants - 1.4 1.21
Chadl Cattle 20.0 22.2 32.0 Sheep 22.0 26.7 33.3 Goats 22.0 23.0 32.0 Cattle/sheep 0.91 0.83 0.97 Cattle/goats 0.91 0.97 1.00
Ghana Cattle 0.40 0.63 0.75 Small ruminants 0.40 0.69 0.75 Cattle/small ruminants 1.00 0.91 1.00
Ivory Coastl Cattle o4.0 D4.0 r2.0 Small ruminants 58.0 58.0 57.0 Cattle/small ruminants 0.93 0.93 0.91
Kenya2 Cattle 0.82 0.92 1.00 Sheep 0.90 0.90 1.11 Goats 0.87 1.00 1.33 Cattle/sheep 0.91 1.02 0.90 Cattle/goats 0.94 0.90 0.75
Mali1 Cattle 55.0 72.0 98.0 Sheep 63.3 83.3 120.0 Goats 55.0 72.0 108.0 Cattle/sheep 0.87 0.86 0.82 Cattle/goats 1.0 1.0 0.91
Nigerl Cattle 44.0 ,6.0 56.0 Sheep 67.0 57.0 57.0 Goats 39.6 60.0 63.6 Cattle/sheep 0.66 0.98 0.98 Cattle/goats 1.11 0.93 0.88
Rwandal Cattle 9.2 13.2 18.0 Sheep 5.0 8.0 9.3 Goats 6.0 8.0 9.96 Cattle/sheep 1.84 1.65 1.94 Cattle/goats 1.53 1.65 1.81 - 98 -
Appendix Table 3 (cont'd)
Country Species 1962 1966 1970
Senegall Cattle 56.0 64.0 64.0 Sheep 66.7 83.3 83.3 Goats 66.7 83.3 83.3 Cattle/smallruminants 0.84 0.77 0.77
Somalial Cattle 0.5 0.46 0.76 Sheep 1.1 1.5 1.43 Goats 1.0 1.39 1.56 Cattle/sheep 0.45 0.31 0.53 Cattle/goats 0.50 0.33 0.49
Togo1 Cattle 61.0 61.0 61.0 Sheep 50.0 60.0 60.0 Goats 52.0 52.0 52.0 Cattle/sheep 1.22 1.02 1.02 Cattle/goats 1.17 1.17 1.17
Upper Volta Cattle 90.0 75.0 95.0 Sheep 60.0 161.0 120.0 Goats 50.0 108.0 100.0 Cattle/sheep 1.5 0.47 0.79 Cattle/goats 1.8 0.69 0.96
Zaire Cattle 0.107 0.1/ 0.18 Sheep 0.163 0.217 0.22 Cattle/sheep 0.66 0.78 0.82
Zambial Cattle 0.15 0.22 0.32 Sheep 0.22 0.22 0.27 Cattle/sheep 0.68 1.00 1.19
Unweighted ratio of prices of cattle/smallruminants, Africa 1.02 0.98 0.99
Source: FAQ 1975.
Notes
1 Prices quoted on a per-head basis; converted to price per kg live weight on the basis of cattle at 250 kg, sheep at 30 kg and goats at 25 kg.
2 Prices quoted on a per-head basis; converted to price per kg live weight on the basis of cattle at 300 kg, sheep at 45 kg and goats at 30 kg. - 99 -
Appendix Table 4. Farmgate Prices of Cattle and Small Ruminants in Latin America and the Caribbean for 1962, 1966, and 1970 (price per kg live weight, local currency*)
Country Species 1962 1966 1970
Argentina Cattle .13 .50 .98 Small ruminants .09 .34 .60 Cattle/smallruminants 1.44 1.47 1.63
Brazil Cattle .046 .345 .66 Sheep .066 .414 .69 Goats .029 .367 .71 Cattle/sheep .70 .83 .96 Cattle/goats 1.60 .94 .93
Chile Cattle 30.0 132.0 412.0 Small ruminants 30.0 153.0 339.0 Cattle/smallruminants 1.0 U.86 1.22
Colombia Cattle 2.0 3.9 4.75 Sheep 2.3 4.9 6.7 Cattle/sheep 0.87 0.80 0.71
Guyana Cattle 0.76 .89 .98 Sheep 1.29 1.40 1.55 Cattle/sheep 0.59 0.64 0.63
Paraguay Cattle 11.8 14.1 14.3 Small ruminants 12.9 17.7 20.3 Cattle/smallruminants 0.91 0.80 0.70
Uruguay Cattle 1.36 9.16 28.9 Sheep .835 7.50 28.0 Cattle/sheep 1.63 1.22 1.03
Unweightedratio of price of cattle/ small ruminants, Latin America 1.10 0.95 0.98
* For prices quoted on a per-head basis, cattle were convertedat 400 kg live weight per head, sheep at 35 kg live weight per head and goats at 30 kg live weight per head.
Source: FAQ 1975. - 1QQ -
Appendix Table 5. Farmgate Prices of Cattle and Small Ruminants in Asia for 1962, 1966, and 1970 (price per kg live weights, local currency*)
Country Species 1962 1966 1970
Burma Cattle 2.3 2.9 3.3 Small ruminants 1.0 1.5 1.7 Cattle/small ruminants 2.3 1.9 1.9
Malaysia:Sabah Cattle 1.40 1.45 1.53 Goats 0.80 0.84 0.88 Cattle/goats 1.75 1.73 1.74
Pakistan Beef 1.47 1.74 2.14 Mutton 3.08 3.62 4.55 Beef/mutton 0.48 0.48 0.47
* Cattle converted from per-head basis at 300 kg live weight, sheep at 30 kg live weight and goats at 25 kg live weight.
Source: FAO 1975. Appendix Table 6. Index Numbers of Prices Received by Farmers in Latin America
Base Country Period 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Honduras 1972 Crops 100 112 110 124 146 151 150 Livestock & livestock products 100 138 104 119 131 169 219 242 Argentina 1976 Crops 5 6 18 100 244 633 1,303 Livestock & livestock products 7 8 14 100 289 640 1,976 Bolivia 1975 Crops 106 100 95 109 147 153 246 Livestock & livetsock products 96 100 92 89 99 104 150 o Brazil 1977 Crops 22 30 55 100 110 154 292 Livestock & livetock products 48 56 59 100 152 281 512 Colombia 1970 Crops 201 256 346 401 678 597 Livestock & livestock products 220 299 351 445 633 787 Uruguay 1975 Crops 57 100 125 169 307 487 940 Livestock & livetock products 79 100 151 251 441 1,029 829
Source: FAQ Production Yearbook, 1980, Vol. 34. Appendix Table 7. Index Numbers of Prices Received by Farmers in Africa Base Country Period 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Bostwana 1978 Crops 100 111 122 Livestock & livestock products 100 112 137 Egypt 1962/63- 1964/65 Crops 167 214 224 253 Livestock & livestock products 138 155 175 210 Rwanda 1974 Crops 100 138 152 158 178 217 0 Livestock & livetock products 100 138 147 154 181 226 South Africa 1958/59- 1960/61 Crops 125 137 168 193 223 231 247 Livestock & livestock products 139 195 227 240 262 280 280 Zimbabwe 1964 Crops 137 147 146 156 170 181 Livestock & livestock products 155 169 172 180 180 213
Source: FAQ Production Yearbook, 1980, Vol. 34. Appendix Table 8. Index Numbers of Prices Received by Farmers in Asia
Base 1979 1980 Country Period 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Korea 1975 210 1 Crops 41 52 56 78 100 121 138 181 257 o Livestock & livestock products 73 86 100 138 169 232 221 260 Philippines 1972 Crops 169 169 200 200 194 221 234 Livestock & livestock products 167 192 237 238 236 304 344
Source: FAQ Production Yearbook, 1980, Vol. 34. Appendix Table 9. Latin America and Caribbean: Summary of Research, Development, Credit and Training Projects with Fbssible Sheep and Goat Components
Project Production Major External Period of Project Title Institution Type System Species Funding Source Operation
Central America and Caribbean CATIE, Pigs, poultry Regional Small Farming System Project Costa Rica R + T Mixed cattle, goats USAID-ROCAP 1979-83 Blenheim Sheep Development Project Government, of Trinidad & Tobago R + D Mixed Hair sheep None--local financing 1981-83 Goat Production Improvement Program Haiti, Min. of Agric. D + T Mixed Goats Arkansas Uiited Methodist Church 1982-85 Livestock & Agriculture Development Government, of Mexico C Mixed & Animal Cattle, swine poultry, sheep IBRD 1969-74 Agriculture Credit Project FONDO-Mexico C Animal Beef & dairy cattle, swine, sheep IBRD 1965-69 Southern Latin America Livestock, Fruit,. Vineyard & Agro. Chile, Ministry of Mixed, Ind. Credit Project Agriculture C + D crop, animal Dairy, beef, sheep IBRD 1977-81 Agriculture Development Uruguay Mln. Agric. C + D Mixed Cattle, sheep IBRD 1980-86 Livestock Dev. Projects I-IV Uruguay Min. Agric. D Animal Cattle, sheep IBRD 1960-74 r1 Ulla Ulla Development Project Bolivia Min. Agric. D Animal Alpaca, llama IBRD, IDA 1978-83 Agriculture Credit Project Bolivia C Mixed Beef, cattle, sheep IDA 1975-80 Integ. Rural Dev. Project Colombia Min. Agric. C + D Mixed Cattle, swine, poultry, rabbits, sheep IBRD 1977-82 Agriculture Credit Project Ecuador Min. Agric. C Animal Cattle, sheep, goats IBRD 1978-82 3rd Livestock Development Bolivia Min. Agric. C + D Animal Cattle, sheep IDA 1971-80 Livestock Dev., I & II Colombia Min. Agric. C + D Animal Cattle, sheep IBRD 1966-75 Puno Rural Dev. Feru Min. Agric. D Mixed Cattle, poultry, Swine, alpaca, sheep IBRD 1981-85 Ag. Credit Projects Argentina, Min. Agric. C Animal Cattle, sheep IBRD 1979-83 Small Ruminant CRSP Peru - INIPA R + T Mixed & Animal Sheep, goats USAID 1980-86 Small Ruminant CRSP Brazil - EMBRAPA R + T Mixed Sheep, goats USAID 1980-86 Nat'l Goat Res. Center EMBRAPA - Brazil R + T Mixed Sheep, goats IICA-IBRD 1978-present
Notes: R - Research T = Training D - Development C - Credit Appendix Table 10. Mid-East and North Africa: Summary of Research, Development, Credit, and Training Projects with Pbssible Sheep and Goat Components
Project Production Major External Period of Project Title Country-Institution Type System Species Funding Source Operation
North Africa Souss Groundwater Project Morocco R + D Mixed Sheep, cattle IBRD 1975-82 Madjerda/Nebhana Irrig. Tunisia Mn. Agric. D + T Mixed Cattle, sheep IBRD 1982-88 Meat Industry Development Algeria-ONAB D Aniimal Sheep IBRD 1982-84 Agric. Credit Morocco-CNAC C Mixed Cattle, sheep IBRD 1977-81 2nd Agric. Credit Morocco C Mixed Beef cattle, sheep IBRD 1972-75 Luokkos Rural Development Project Morocco Min. Agric. D Mixed Cattle, sheep, goats IBRD 1981-87 Middle Atlas Agric. Development Morocco Min. Agric. D Mixed Horses, cattle, sheep goats IBRD 1982-88 N. W. Rural Development Project Morocco C + R & D + T Mixed Cattle, sheep IBRD, Germany ? 1st Livestock Development Project Syria Min. Agric. C + D Animal Dairy cattle, sheep IBRD 1978-82 Small Ruminant CRSP Morocco Hassan II Univ. R + T Animal, mixed Sheep, goats U.S.AID 1982-86 Prolific Sheep Center (SR-CRSP) Morocco Hassan II Mln. Agric. R + T Animal Sheep U.S.AID ? Nuclear Techniques for Sheep & Goats Africa-Middle East Region R Animal Sheep, goats I.A.E.A. (Vienna) ? Livestock Development Project Afghanistan-Herat Livestock Dev. Crop. R + D Animal Sheep IDA 1974-81 2nd Livestock Dev. Project Afghanistan-Sheep Imp. Center R + D Animal Sheep IDA 1976-82 Agric. & Rural Dev. Project Afghanistan Min. Agric. R, D, C Animal Cattle, poultry, sheep ITNDP-IDA-IFAD 1979-84 3rd Abbi Agric. Credit Project Iran-Agric. Dev. Bank C Mixed pbultry, cattle, sheep IBRD 1975-79 Intensive Sheep Meat Production and Marketing Iran Min. Agric. D + T Animal Sheep UNDP/FAO 1973-76 2nd Livestock Development Turkey D + C Mixed Cattle, sheep IDA 1973-80 5th Livestock Development Turkey D + C Mixed Poultry, cattle, sheep IBRD 1980-87 4th Livestock Development Turkey C Mixed Cattle, sheep IBRD 1978-85 Livestock Credit & Processing Yemen Arab Republic- Nat'l Livestock Dev. Poultry, cattle, Corp. D Animal sheep, goats IDA-Kuwait Dev. Fund-- 1977-84 Holland 1977-84 Erzurum Rural Development Turkey Min. Agric. D + C Mixed Cattle, sheep, goats IBRD-IFAD 1982-87
R = Research Project D - Development Project T = Training Project C = Credit Project Appendix Table 11. Sub-Saharan Africa: Summary of Research, Development, Credit, and Training Projects with Fbssible Sheep and Goat Components
Project Production Major External Period of Project Title Institution Type System Species Funding Source Operation
Livestock Marketing Sudan Min. Agric. D Animal Sheep, goats, cattle camels IDA-ODM 1979-84 Sheep & Goat Production Gov't of Ghana T + D Mixed Sheep, goats UNDP/FAO 1978-82 Livestock Marketing in Central Zone Niger Gov't R Animal Cattle, camels, sheep, goats U.S.AID 1982 West Volta Livestock Project Upper Volta Min. Rural Development R Animal Cattle, sheep, goats French Government 1979-81 Livestock Project Mali Min. Agric. D Animal Cattle, sheep, goats, camels IDA 1975-82 Rangeland Development Ethiopia Min. Agric. D Animal Cattle, sheep, goats, camels IDA-ADF 1976-83 Bay Region Agric. Development Somalia D + T Animal, mixed Cattle, sheep, goats IDA-ADF-U.S.AID-IFAD 1980-87 ° Narok Agric. Development Kenya Min. Agric. D + T Mixed Cattle, sheep, goats IDA-CIDA 1979-84 Livestock Development Project Mauritania D Animal Cattle, sheep, goats IDA 1972-76 Livestock Development Project Botswana D Animal Cattle, Karakul sheep IDA-SIDA 1973-80 Central Rangelands Development Somalia D + T Animal Cattle, camels, sheep, goats IDA-IFAD-U.S.AID-0DM-WFP 1980-86 Improvement of Small Ruminant ILCA-IITA Production in the Humid Zone Nigeria Gov't R + T Mixed Sheep, goats CCIAR-Ford Foundation 1977-present Sheep & Goat Development Project Kenya Min. Livestock Development D + T Animal Sheep, goats UNDP/FAO 1975-present Small Ruminant CRSP Kenya Min. Livestock Development R + T Mixed Dairy Goats U.S.AID 1980-86
R - Research Project D = Development Project T - Training Project C = Credit Project Appendix Table 12. South and Southeast Asia: Summary of Research, Development, Credit, and Training Projects with Pbssible Sheep and Coat Components
Project Production Major External Period of Project Title Country-Institution Type System Species Funding Sources Operation
South & West Asia
All-India Coord. Research Project India-Central Sheep & on Sheep Breeding Wool Research Inst. R + T Animal Sheep None 1974-present Sheep & Goat Research & Dev. Project India-Central Sheep & Wool Research Inst. R, T, D Mixed, animal Sheep, goats None 1962-present Drought Prone Areas Indai Min. Agric. & Irrigation D + T Mixed Dairy cattle, sheep IDA 1975-81 D National Sheep & Yak Dev. Project Bhutan Min. Agric. D + T Animal Yaks, sheep UNDP/FAO 1974-78 Sheep, Goat & Wool Dev. Project Nepal Min. Agric. D + T Mixed Sheep, goats UNDP/FAO 1974-80 Rainfed Agricultural Development Philippines Min. Agric. D + T Mixed Cattle, swine, goats IBRD 1980-81 Small Ruminant CRSP Indonesia-AARD R + T MAxed Sheep, goats U.S.AID 1980-86 Animal Research & Development Inst. Indonesia-AARD R + T Mixed, animal Cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry Australia-ADAB 1973-present Central Goat Research Institute India-ICAR R + T Mixed, animal Goats None known 1978-present All-India Coord. Goat Project India-ICAR R, T, D Mixed, animal Goats None known 1972-present Hill Country Dairy Goat Dev. Program Sri Lanka D Mixed Goats None known 1978-present Dairy Goat Dev. Program Philippines Bureaui Animal Inst. D Mixed Goats None known 1977-present Goat Development Program Fiji Min. Agric. D + T Mixed Goats UNDP/FAO 1976-80
R = Research Project D = Development Project T = Training Project C = Credit Project Appendix Table 13. Europe and North America: Summary of Research, Development, Credit, and Trainng Projects with Pbssible Sheep and Goat Components
Project Production Major Exeternal Period of Project Title Country-Institution Type System Species Funding Sources Operation
Nucleus Breeding Units Milk Recording Cyprus Min. Agric. & Schemes Natural Resources R + D Mixed Sheep, goats United Nations 1976-86 Mixed Farming Project Cyprus Min. Agric. & Natural Resrouces C + D Mixed Sheep, goats WFP 1967-present Smallholder Livestock Project Cyprus Min. Agric. & Natural Resources C + D Mixed Sheep, goats None 1982-present Bosanska Krajina Agr. & Agro-Ind. Swine, poultry, cattle Project Yugoslavia- D Mixed sheep, goats IBRD 1979-83 Macedonia III Agric. Dev. Project Yugoslavia- D Mixed Swine, poultry, bees X cattle, sheep, goats IBRD 1982-87 2nd & 3rd Agric. Credit Project Yugoslavia- C + D Mixed Swine, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats IBRD 1978-85 Morava Reg. Development II Yugoslavia- C + D Mixed Swine, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats IBRD 1981-86 Moldava Agric. Credit Romania- C + D Mixed Dairy cattle, sheep IBRD 1982-86 Tras-os-Montes Rural Development Pbrtugal- D Mixed Cattle, sheep, goats IBRD 1982-88 Agricultural and Fisheries Credit Portugal- C Mixed Fish, cattle, sheep, goats IBRD 1980-84
R = Research Project D = Development Project T = Training Project C = Credit Project - 109 -
REFERENCES
Barat, S. K. n.d. The Prospects and Problems of Optimal Mobilization of Hides and Skins Resources in The Developing World. WS/H3450, Agricultural Services Division, FAO, Rome, pp 17.
Billings, W. D. 1966. Plants and the Ecosystem. Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California.
Buvanendran, V. 1978. Sheep in Sri Lanka. World Animal Review 27:13.
Byerly, T. C. 1966. The role of livestock in food production. Journal of Animal Science. 25:552.
Chenost, M. and F. Geoffrey. 1971. Observations sur le comportement d'un troupeau de caprins laitiers de race Alpine en zone tropicale humide. In 2nd International Conference about Goat Breeding, July 17-19, Tours, France. pp 241-250. Institut Technique de l'Elevage Ovin et Caprin (I.T.O.V.I.C.), Paris, France.
Cunha, T. J. 1982. The animal as a food resource for man. In Proceed- ings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Dis- ease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 1-8. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Dahl, G. and A. Hjort. 1976. Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.
De Boer, A. J. 1981. Sheep and goat development project, Kenya: pro- duction economics. FAO/UNDP Project AG:DP/KEN/75/022 Consultant Report, FAO, Rome.
De Boer, A. J. 1982. Goat and goat product markets and market pros- pects: an international perspective. In Proceedings, Third Inter- national Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 37-44. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
De Boer, A. J., M. Job, and W. Maunda. 1982. The relative profitabili- ty of meat goats, Angora goats, sheep and cattle in four agro-eco- nomic zones of Kenya. In Proceedings, Third International Confer- ence on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 355. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona (Abstr.).
Delgado, C. L. and J. McIntire. 1982. Constraints on oxen cultivation in the Sahel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64:188.
Demment, T. and P. J. Van Soest. 1982. Body Size, Digestive Capacity, and Feeding Strategies of Herbivores. Winrock International, Mor- rilton, Arkansas. - 110 -
Devendra, C. 1971. Goat production in the Caribbean. In 2nd Interna- tional Conference about Goat Breeding, July 17-19, Tours, France. pp 47-54. Institut Technique de l'Elevage Ovin et Caprin (I.T.O.V.I.C.), Paris, France.
Devendra, C. 1972. The composition of milk of British Alpine and Anglo-Nubian goats imported into Trinidad. Journal of Dairy Re- search 39:381.
Devendra, C. 1979. Report on the Project: The Development of Goats in Asia. Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia, the Far East, and Southwest Pacific (APHCA/FAO). Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute. Serdang, Malaysia.
Devendra, C. 1981. Potential of sheep and goats in less developed countries. Journal of Animal Science 51:461.
Devendra, C. 1982a. Social consequences of technology in the improve- ment of peasant agriculture; contribution: small farmer goat pro- duction in less developed countries. In Proceedings, Third Inter- national Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 329-330. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Devendra, C. 1982b. The socio-economic significance of goat production in the Asian region. In Proceedings, Third International Confer- ence on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 201-208. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scotts- dale, Arizona.
Ewing, S. A. 1975. Role of livestock in use of feed resources, land use and resource conservation. Presentation at 67th American Soc. Animal Science Meeting at Fort Collins, Colorado. July 30. pp 1- 31.
FAO. 1970. 1970 World Census of Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1972. 1971 Production Yearbook, Vol. 25. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1975. 1974 Production Yearbook, Vol. 28-1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1975. Agricultural Producer Prices: 1961-1970. Food and Agri- culture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1979. 1978 Production Yearbook, Vol. 32. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1981. 1980 Production Yearbook, Vol. 34. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. - ill -
FAO. 1982. 1981 Production Yearbook, Vol. 35. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO/World Bank. 1977. The outlook for meat production and trade in the Near East and East Africa. Vol. I, Market Situation, Problems and Prospects.
Fitzhugh, H. A. 1981. Small Ruminants as Food Producers. In New Pro- tein Foods, Vol. IV pp 135-157. Academic Press, New York.
Fitzhugh, H. A. and G. E. Bradford. 1983. Hair Sheep of Western Africa and the Americas--A Genetic Resource for the Tropics. A Winrock International Study. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Fitzhugh, H. A., R. D. Hart, R. A. Moreno, P. 0. Osuji, M. E. Ruiz, and L. Singh (Ed.). 1982. Proceedings of a Workshop: Research on Crop-Animal Systems. CATIE, CARDI, and Winrock International participating institutions. Workshop held at CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, April 4-7, 1982. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.
Fitzhugh, H. A., H. J. Hodgson, 0. J. Scoville, T. D. Nguyen, and T. C. Byerly. 1978. The Role of Ruminants in Support of Man. Win- rock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.
Gabre Mariam, A. and M. Hillman. 1975. A Report on the Central High- lands Market Survey, Livestock and Meat Board, Ethiopia, Monograph.
Galina, M. A. and A. Juarez L. 1982. Achievements, pitfalls and short- comings of the transfer of technology to the goat industry in the north of Mexico. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 331-333. Dairy Goat Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Galina, M. A., M. Guerrero, V. Rojas, Ma. L. R. Ruiz and V. Vazquez. 1982. Social status of the goat industry in Mexico. In Pro- ceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 420-421. Dairy Goat Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Gall, C. 1981. Goat Production. Academic Press, London.
Gefu, J. 0. 1982. Socio-economic characteristics of goat producers and their husbandry practices in northern Nigeria. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982. Tucson, Arizona pp 422-427. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Gilles, J. 1982. Prestige and goats--social obstacles to the expan- sion of goat production. In Proceedings, Third International Con- ference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 417-419. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scotts- dale, Arizona. - 112 -
Gutierrez, N. F. and A. J. De Boer. 1982. Marketing and price forma- tion for meat goats, hair sheep, and their products in Ceara State, Northeast Brazil. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Ari- zona. pp 50-54. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Gutierrez, N.F., A. J. De Boer, and V. V. Gomes. 1982. Capital struc- ture and farm income for a sample of sheep and goat producers in Ceara State, Northeast Brazil. Winrock International Small Rumi- nant CRSP Working Paper No. WP-BR-1.
Hart, R. D., H. A. Fitzhugh, and N. F. Gutierrez. 1982. Crop-Animal Production System Research at Winrock International. In H. A. Fitzhugh, R. D. Hart, R. A. Moreno, P. 0. Osuji, M. E. Ruiz, and L. Singh (Ed.). Proceedings of a Workshop: Research on Crop-Ani- mal Systems. CATIE, CARDI, and Winrock International, participa- ting institutions. Workshop held at CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, April 4-7, 1982. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.
Hodgson, R. E. 1971. The place of animals in world agriculture. Jour- nal of Dairy Science 54:442.
Huston, J. E. 1978. Forage utilization and nutrient requirements of the goat. Journal of Dairy Science 61:988.
ILCA. 1979a. Trypanotolerant Livestock in West and Central Africa, ILCA Monograph 2. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ILCA. 1979b. Small ruminant production in humid tropics. ILCA Systems Study 3. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ILCA. 1980. Economic Trends--Small Ruminants. ILCA Bulletin No. 7. International Livestock Centre for Afria, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Jahnke, H. E. 1982. Livestock Production Systems and Livestock Devel- opment in Tropical Africa. Kieler Wissenchaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel, Federal Republic of Germany.
Josserand, H. and E. Ariza-Nino. 1982. The marketing of small rumi- nants in west Africa. In Proceedings, Third International Confer- ence on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 55-62. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Ladipo, J. K. 1973. Body composition of male goats and characteriza- tion of their depot fats. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. - 113 -
Little, P. D. 1982. Risk aversion, economic diversification and goat production: some comments on the role of goats in African pastoral production systems. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 428-430. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scotts- dale, Arizona.
MacFarlane, W. V. 1982. Concepts in animal adaptation. In Proceed- ings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Dis- ease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 375-385. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Martin, M. A. 1982. Case studies of traditional marketing systems: goats and goat products in Northeast Iran. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 45-49. Dairy Goat Journal Publish- ing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Mason, I. L. 1969. A World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types, and Varieties. Commonwealth Agric. Bur., Farnham Royal, England.
Mason, I. L. 1980. Prolific tropical sheep. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 17. FAO, Rome.
Mba, A. U., B. S. Boyo, and V. A. Oyenuga. 1975. Studies on the milk composition of West African Dwarf, Red Sokoto and Sannen goats at different stages of lactation. I. Total solids, butterfat, solids-not-fat, protein, lactose, and energy contents of milk. Journal of Dairy Research 42:217.
McCammon-Feldman, B., P. J. Van Soest, P. Horvath, and R. E. McDowell. 1982. Feeding Strategy of the Goat. Cornell International Agri- cultural Mimeo No. 88 Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
McDowell, R. E. 1974. Animal production in world food supplies. Cor- nell International Agriculture Monograph 45. Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
McDowell, R. E. 1976. World animal agriculture situation. MUCIA Semi- nar, Nov. 19, U.S.A. (Mimeo).
McDowell, R. E. 1977. Ruminant Products More than Meat and Milk. Win- rock Report.
McDowell, R. E. 1979. Role of animals in support of man. World Food Issue Series of Papers. Cornell University, Center for the Analy- ses of World Issues, Ithaca, New York.
McDowell, R. E. and L. Bove. 1977. The goat as a producer of meat. Cornell International Agriculture Mimeo 56. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. - 114 -
McDowell, R. E. and P. H. Hildebrand. 1980. Integrated Crop and Animal Production: Making the Most of Resources Available to Small Farms in Developing Countries. Rockefeller Foundation Conference, Bellagio, Italy.
McDowell, R. E. and A. Woodward. 1982. Comparable suitability of goats, sheep, and cattle to tropical environments. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 387-393. Dairy Goat Jour- nal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Mink, S. 1982. Prospects for small farm goat production in transmigra- tion area of Indonesia: results of a survey. Winrock Internation- al Small Ruminant CRSP Research Report No. RR-IN-1.
Noble, A. L. and M. F. Nolan. 1982. Women and goats in western Kenya: dilemmas for development. In Proceedings, Third Interna- tional Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 197-200. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Peters, K. J., G. Deichert, E. Drewes, G. Fizhtner, and S. Moll. 1982. Goat production in low income economic units of selected areas in West Malaysia. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 551. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona (Abstr.).
Raut, R. C. and U. G. Nadkarni. 1974. Cost of rearing sheep and goats under migratory and stationary conditions. Indian Journal of Ani- mal Science 44:459.
Sabrani, M. and H. C. Knipscheer. 1982. Sheep and goat markets in Central Java: a profile. Working Paper No. 5, Research Institute for Animal Production, Bogor, Indonesia, August.
Sabrani, M., A. Muljadi, and A. J. De Boer. 1981. Small Ruminant Pro- duction on Small Farms in West Java, Indonesia: Preliminary Re- sults of a Baseline Survey of Upland and Lowland Farming Systems. Central Research Institute for Animal Science. Bogor, Indonesia.
Sachdeva, K. K., 0. P. S. Sengar, S. N. Singh, and I. L. Lindahl. 1973. Studies on Goats. 1. Effect of plane of nutrition on the reproductive performance of does. Journal of Agricultural Science, (Camb.) 80:375.
Sandford, S. 1982. Institutional and economic issues in the develop- ment of goat and goat product markets. In Proceedings, Third In- ternational Conference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 31-35. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Sands, M. and R. E. McDowell. 1978. The potential of the goat for milk production in the tropics. Cornell International Agricultural Mimeo 60, Iyhaca, New York. - 115 -
Sands, M. and R. E. McDowell. 1979. A world bibliographyon goats. Cornell InternationalAgriculture Mimeograph #70, Ithaca, New York.
Shelton, M. 1976. Using genetic resourceswithin the environmental disease, and other constraints to optimize production. In Proceed- ings of a Workshop on Role of Sheep and Goats in AgriculturalDe- velopment. pp 20-22. Winrock International,Morrilton, Arkansas.
Singh, R. 1982. Socio-economicbarriers to the expansionof goat pro- duction in Haryana. In Proceedings,Third InternationalConference on Goat Productionand Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Ari- zona. pp 553. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale,Ari- zona (Abstr.).
Smith, G. C., M. I. Pike and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974. Comparisonof the palatabilityof goat meat and meat from four other animal species. J. Food Sci. 39:1145.
Stanton, T. 1982. Introductionand acceptance of goats and their socio-economicimportance in the Caribbean and Central America. In Proceedings,Third InternationalConference on Goat Productionand Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 182-185. Dairy Goat Journal Publishing Co., Scottsdale,Arizona.
Stotz, D. 1980. Dairy goats or dairy cattle. A smallholderfarm management analysis. Working paper No. 2, Ministry of Livestock Development,Animal Production Division, Nairobi, Kenya.
Stotz, D. 1982. Dairy goats or dairy cattle (a smallholderfarm management analysis). In Proceedings,Third InternationalConfer- ence on Goat Productionand Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 355. Dairy Goat Journal PublishingCo., Scottsdale, Arizona (Abstr.).
Swain, N., P. M. Jain, and R. M. Acharya. 1982. Relative economics of sheep and goat. In Proceedings,Third internationalConference on Goat Productionand Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 290. Dairy Goat Journal PublishingCo., Scottsdale,Arizona (Abstr.).
Swift, J. J. 1979. West African pastoral production systems. Live- stock productionand marketing in the Entente States of West Africa, Working Paper No. 3. University of Michigan Center for Research on Economic Development,Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Terrill, C. E. 1979. The distributionof breeds of sheep as related to domesticationand developmentof modern genotypes. In The Domes- tication of Sheep; Their Ancestors, Geography, Time Period, and People Involved. pp 41-112. The InternationalSheep and Goat Institute,Utah State University,Logan, Utah.
Thedford, T. R. 1983a. Goat Health Care Handbook. Winrock International,Morrilton, Arkansas. - 116 -
Thedford,T. R. 1983b. Sheep Health Care Handbook. Winrock Interna- tional, Morrilton,Arkansas.
Todd, M. C. and M. D. Cowell, 1981. Within-saleprice variation of cat- tle and carcass auctions. AustralianJournal of AgricultureEcono- mics 25(1):30.
USAID. 1980. The workshop on pastoralismand African livestockdevel- opment. AID Program EvaluationReport No. 4, PN-AAH-238. U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.
Valencia,M. and E. Gonzalez Padilla. 1983. Pelibuey Sheep in Mexico. In H. A. Fitzhugh and G. E. Bradford (Ed.) Hair Sheep in Western Africa and the Americas--A Genetic Resource for the Tropics. pp 55-76. A Winrock InternationalStudy. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Van deMark, N. L., T. J. Cunha, H. F. De Graff, H. J. Hodgson, S. C. King, J. E. Oldfield,J. T. Reid, and G. W. Salsbury. 1976. Increasedproductivity from animal agriculture. Cornell University Report to National Science Foundation.
Van Soest, P. 1982. NutritionalEcology of the Ruminant. O&B Books, Inc., Corvallis,Oregon.
Wheeler, R. O., G. L. Cramer, K. B. Young, and E. Ospina. 1981. The World Livestock Product, Feedstuff, and Food Grain System. Winrock InternationalTechnical Report. Winrock International,Morrilton, Arkansas.
Wilson, R. T. 1982. The economic and social importanceof goats and their products in the semi-aridarea of northern tropical Africa. In Proceedings,Third InternationalConference on Goat Production and Disease, January 5-9, 1982, Tucson, Arizona. pp 186-196. Dairy Goat Journal PublishingCo., Scottsdale,Arizona.
Winrock International. 1976. Proceedingsof a Workshop on: The Role of Sheep and Goats in AgriculturalDevelopment, Winrock Interna- tional,Morrilton, Arkansas.
Winrock International. 1977. The Role of Sheep and Goats in Agricul- tural Development: A State of the Arts Study. Report prepared for TechnicalAssistance Bureau/Agriculture,U.S. Agency for Interna- tional Development. Winrock International,Morrilton, Arkansas.
Winrock International. 1982. Draft Position Paper on Livestock Program Prioritiesand Strategy. Paper prepared for U.S. Agency for Inter- national Development. Winrock International,Morrilton, Arkansas.
World Bank. 1982. Price Prospects for Major Primary Commodities. Volume I: Summary and Implications. Commoditiesand Export Pro- jections Division Report No. 814/82, Economic Analysis and Projec- tions Department.
Yazman, J. A. 1979. Economics of commercialdairy goat milk productinoin central Arkansas. Paper presentedat California Dairy Goat Day November 10, 1979. Universityof California, Davis, California. Worid Batnk Agricultural Credit Agricultural Price lublicatious Outlines agricultural credit practices Management in Egypt and problems, programs, and William Cuddihy of Related policies in developing countries and WorldBank Staff WorkingPaper [Yo. discusses their implications for World 3.rl1980. Staff pes Ncu Bank operations. 388. April 1980. x +164 pages (includ- llntffest AnWorldBankoperations. May1975ing annex,bibliography). A WorldBank Paper.May 1975.85 SokJ P08 50 pages(including 14 annex tables). Stock[o. WP-0388.$5.00. Adoption of Agrlcultural English,french, and Spanish. Agricultural Price Policies Innovations in Developing StockN10s. PP-502-E, PP-7502-f, theD ling Countries: A Suvey PP-7502-S. $5.00 paperback. and the seveloping Gershon Feder, Richard Just, Countries and David Silberman George Tolley, Vinod Thomas, lleviews various studies that have pro- The Agricultural Economy of and Chung Ming Wong videcl a description of and possible Northeast Brazil This book first considers price explanation for patterns of innovation Gary P.Kutcher and policies in Korea, Bangladesh. Thai- adoption in the agricultural sector. PasqualeL. Scandizzo land, and Venezuela, bringing out thf WorldBank Staff WorkingPaper This study, based on an agricultural consequences for ioverncmentcost Iao.542. 1982.65 pages. survey of 8,000 farms, assesses the ducer and consumner welfare. Other ,'SBlt0-8213-0103-9. $3.00. extent and root causes of pervasive effects, including those on agri- rural poverty in northeast Brazil. The cultural diversification, infation, Agrarian Reform as authors review a number of policy economic growth, and the balance ol Unfinished Business- and prOJeCtoptions; they conclude payments are also discussed. The the Selected Papers of that courageous land reforf is the second part of the book provides a 'Wolf Ladejlnsky teponl bffciemeaso.eaigwt methodology for estimating these Louis J. Walinsky,th problem.effects in any country. Operational Louis J. Walinsky,editor TheJohns ttopkins University Press, tools for measuring the effects on Studies in agrarian policy and land 2982. 288 pages. producers, consumers, and govern- reforTn spanning four decades, LC81-47615 1SB[Y0-8018-2581 4 ment are developed and applied. auedinskysyearsgcally ahccording to $25.00 (417.50) hardcover. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Tokyo, and Vietnam and while at the 1982. 256 pages. Ford Foundation and the Worid Bank. Agricultural Extension: The LC81-15585. ISBNI 0-8018-2704-3, Oxford University Press, 1977. 614 Training and Visit System $25.00 (117.50) hardcover. pages (including appendixes, index). Daniel Benor LCIBN 7-225. -1-920955,and James Q. Harrison Agricultural Project $32.50(714.95) hardcover, Describes the Training and Visit Analysis: Case Studies and ISB' 0-19-920098-X, $14.95 (i5.25) System of extension developed by Exercises paperback. Daniel Benor and introduced in a Case studies and exercises on number of projects assisted by the agricultural project preparation and Agrarian Reforms in World Bank in developing countries. analysis, developed for, and used in, Delveloping Rural May 1977. 55 pages (including annex). EDls rural development and rural Economies Characterized by English, French, and Spanish. credit courses. Interlinked Credit and Stock Nos. PM-7701-E,PM-7701-F, World Bank (EDI),1979, u.1-viii + Tenancy Markets PM-7701-S.$3.00 paperback. 711pages. v.2-iv + 113 pages. v.3 Avishay Braverrnan -iu + 157 pages. (Available from ILS, and T. N. Srinivasan Agricultural Land 1715 ConnecticutAvenue, N.W., WoridBank Staff WorkingPaper [Noa. Settlement Washington, D.C.20009, U.SA.) 433, October 1980.32 pages (including Theodore J. Goering, coor- $9.00 paperback. references). dinating author Stock No..WP-0433. $3.00. Examines selected issues related Agricultural Research to the World Bank's lending for land Points out that developing countries settlement, and gives estimates of must invest more in agricultural the global rate of settlement and research if they are to meet the the world's ultimate potentially needs of their growing popuiations. arable land. States that studies in Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, and the United States A World Bank Issues Paper. January show that agricultural research yields 1978. 73 pages(including 4 annexes). a rate of return that is more than two English, french, and Spanish. to three times greater than returns Stock Nos. PP-7801-E,PP-7801-F, from most altemative investments PP-7801-S.$5.00 paperback. and cites some of the successes of the high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat that were developed in the Farm Budgets: From Farm NEW mid-1960s. Discusses the World Income Analysis to Bank's plans to expand its lending for Agricultural Project Analysis Improving Irligated Agrlcul- agricultural research and extension, Maxwell L. Brown ture: Institutional Reform particularly for the production of food and other commodities that are Clarifles the relation between simple and the Small Fanmer of importance to low-income con- farm Income analysis and the broader Daniel W. Bromley sumers, small farmers, and resource- field of agricultural project analysis A model of farmer interdependenceis poor areas. and emphasizes the more practical d ed o providepens is Sector Policy Paper.June 1981.10 aspects of project preparation and mproving exstiongdeisugigestions for pages (including annexes). English, for planning in agriculture. as well as for designing new ones. French,and Spanish. WorrdplankingaffWorkingtPape Development Woi Bank StffWrking Pper StockNo. PP-8101-E, StocAPP-8101-F 1Yo 1t/11011&lOl-FEDI EDIe SeriesSere in tpinsEconoicDvelotyPment. Ecnomic No. 5.31,1982. 96 pages. paperb7ack. TeJhsHpisUies4iPes PP-8101-S.$5.00 1980.154 pages. ISB110-8213-0064-4. $5.00. A Development Model for LC 79-3704.ISBN 0-8018-2386-2, the Agicultural sector $15.00-01-250) hardcover, NEW of Portugalof Portugal ~~~~~ISBN45)perak8-8018-238 7-0, $6.50______Aivin C. Egbert 4.50) paperback. Increasing Agricultural and Hyung M. ICim Spanish: Presupuestosde firicas. Productivity Spatial mathematical programming is EditorialTecnos, 1982. (Proceedingsof the Third Annual used to develop comprehensive and ISBN84-309-0886-2, 725 pesetas. AgriculturalSector Symposium) quantitative methods to suggest Ted J. Davis, editor development strategies in Portugal's Fishery These proceedings are the third in a agriculture sector. Highlights the importance of fisheries series of records of Agricultural Sec- The JohnsHopkins University Press, to the economies of developing coun- tor Symposia presented at the World 1975. fO pages (including tries and recommends that the World Bank each January since 1980. Con- bibliography). Bank provide assistance to those tains the papers presented by the LC 75-26662. ISBN 0,8018-1793-5, countries that have the fishery speakers, chairpersons' statements, 75-26662.LC ISBN 0-8018-1795-5, resources and are willing to develop and summaries of the discussions $6.50(44.00) paperback. them further. prepared by the rapporteurs, Economic Aspecs and .SectorPolicy Paper. December 1982. 1982. 307 pages (includingindex). Polcy Issues In Ground- ISBN0-8213-0138-1. $5.00 paperback. ISBN0-8213-0099-7. $15.00. water Development Ian Carruthers and Roy Stoner Food Security In Food NEW Examinesa wide range of economic Defidt Countries and policy issues related to develop- Shlomo Reutlinger India: Demand and Supply ment of groundwater for irrigation. and Keith Knapp Prospects for Agriculture WorldBank Staff WorkingPaper WorldBank Staff WorkingPaper No. James Q. Harrison, No. 496. October1981. 110 pages 393.June 1980.39 pages (including Jon A. Hitchings, (includingannex, bbilography). appendix,references). and John W. Wall Stock No. WP-0496.$5.00. Stock No. WP-0393. $3.00. Contains four papers that report on the World Bank's economic work in the agricultural sector in India and N_EW Forestry the implications of this development mrahamDonaldson, coordi- both for foodgrains and for other major agricultural commodities. Economic Returm to Invest- nating author Focuses on the demand for ment in Irrlgation In India Eamines the significance of forests agricultural commodities through the Leslie A. Abbie, in economic development and con- year 2000, the foodgrain economy, James Q. Harrison, cludes that the World Bank should the vegetable oil economy, and the and John W. Wall greatlyIncrease its role in forestry sugar economy. Reports on an investigation into the adviser to governments. World Bank Staff WorkingPaper effilciency of Investnent in surface - No.500. October1981. 133 pages and groundwater irrigation In India. SectorPolicy Paper. February 1978. 63 (including5 appendixes,references, pages(including 7 annexes).English, annex). WorldBank Staff Working Paper french,and Spanish. StockNo. WP-0500. $5.00. IYo.536.1982. 52pages. StockNfos. PP-7804-E, PP-7804-F, ISBN0-8213-0083-0. $3.00. PP-7804-S. $5.00 paperback. Aricultural Research and NEW Casos y Ejerciclos Sobre Productivity Proyectos Agicolas Robert E. Evenson The Book of CHAC: Edited by Orlando T. Espadas and Yoav Kislev Programming Studies for Three case studies prepared in con- Exanines the role of scientific Mexican Agricultural Policy junction with the EDI's Agricultural research and technological change in Edited by Roger D. Norton and Projects Courses in Spanish and increasing agricultural productivity. Leopoldo Solfs M. intended primarly for teachers of Yale Uniuersily Press, 302 TempleStreet, The principal tool of analysis is the project New Haven, Connecticut 06520, U.SA. sector model CHiAC,named after the World Bank (EDIJ),March 1974; reuised 1975. xi + 204 pages (including 10 Mayan rain god. This model can be January 1975. 480 pages (Available appendixes,references, index). used throughout the sector to cover ftom ILS, 1715 ConnecticutAvenue, LCISBN 7445210.0-500-01815-0, short-cycle crops, their inputs, and N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009, U.S.A.) LC 74-hc210. ISBN 0-300-01815-0, their markets. It can also be broken $15.00 hardcover, ISBIY0-300-01877-0, down into submodels for particular $5.00 paperback. $3.95 paperback. localities if more detailed analysis is Spanish: Investigaci6n agricola y pro- weigh the costs amhelp planners The Design of Organiza- ductiviidad. Editorial recnos, 1976. which can vary from region to region. dons for Rural Development ISBN 84-309-0641-X,420 pesetas. This volume reports the experience of Projects-a Progress using the CHACmodel and also pre- Report sents purely methodological material. William E. Smith. Agroindustrial Project The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Francis J. Lethem, and Analysis 1983. 632 pages. Ben A. Thoolen James E. Austin LC 80-29366. ISBN 0-8018-2585-7, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. Provides and illustrates a framework $35.00 (£24.50) hardcover. 375. March 1980. 48 pages. English for analyzing and designing agro- industrial projects. and French. WP-0375-F. EDI Series in Economic Development NEW - ~~~~~~~Stock$t.0.WNlo.WP-03?75-fE TheJohns Hopkins University Press, 1981.224 pages (including appen- Building National Capadty dixes, bibliography, and index). to Develop Water Users' The Design of Rural LC 80-550. ISBN0-8018-2412-5, Associations: Experience Development: Lessons $1650 (10.00) hardcover; ISBN from the Philippines from Africa 0-8018-2413-3, $7.50 (U425) Frances E Korten Uma Lele papeyback. Over a flve-year period, the National Analyzes new ways of designing rural ftrench: L'Analysedes projets agro- Irrigation Administration (NIA)of the development projects to reach large industriels. Economica, 1982. Philippines has been building its numbers of low-income subsistence ISBINI2-7178-0480-3, 49 francs. capacity to develop water users populations. The paperback reprint- associations on small-scale irrigation ing in 1979 contains a new chapter by Spanish: Analisis de proyectos agro- systems. This paper details the the author updating her flndings. industriales. Editorial Tecnos, 1981. changes that have been made within TheJohns Hopkins University Pres ISBN84-309-0882-X, 600 pesetas. the agency as a result of the develop- 1975 rd printing 1979.260 paes ment of these associations prior to 195 dprnig17926pae the construction of the physical (including glossary, appendix, maps, Atrgentina: Country Case system and the involvement of bibliography, index). Study of Agricultural ices, association members In the planning ISBN0-8018-1769-2, $9.95 Traxes,and Subsidies examinesand construction the nature stages. of the It learningalso paperback.pprak 'Luclo G. Reca process that has led to these changes French: Le developpement World Bank Staff Working Paper No. and discusses the implications for rural: I'experience Africaine. 386. April 1980. 72 pages (including donor support of other small-scale Economica,1977. 3annexes). irrigation programs and more ISBN 2-7178-0006-9, 39 francs. annexes,. generally for programs involving Stock No. WP-0386. $3.00. village-level work. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 528. July 1982. v + 69 pages (including references). ISBN 0-8213-0051-2. $3.00. !
Land Reform and they involve a variety of invest- Rethinking Artisanal Fish- Examines the characteristics of land evaluatng them during implementa- dcries Development: Western reform, its implications for the evlaigte uigipeet- Concepts, Asian Experiences economies of developing countries, tion has been accepted in principle, oadK rmro andoies mjor dvlcyoptions copentr, but effective systems have not DonaldK. Emmerson the Wormd Bankthe Wordin thisfield.ceptsthis Bankin fleld. t heretoforeof monitoring been formulated. and evaluation The con- 423.World October Bank Staff 1980.Working x + 9 7 Paper pages No. A World Bank Paper. May 1975. 73 are differentiated and issues that pages (including 2 annexes). need to be considered in designing (including references). English, French, and Spanish. systems to monitor and evaluate Stock No. WP-0423. $5.00. specific projects are outlined, Stock Nos. PP-7503-E,PP-7503-F, emphasizing the timeliness of the PP-7503-5. $5.00 paperback. monitoring functions for effective Rural Development management. Elaborates on such Discusses strategy designed to extend technical issues as selection of indica- the benefits of development to the Land Tenure Systems and tors, selection of survey methodology rural poor and outlines the World Social Implications of data analysis, and presentation. It is Bank's plans for increasing its assis- Forestry Development directed primarily to those working tance in this sector. F'Tograms with specific projects and will be use- Sector Policy Paper, February 1975, 89 Michael M. Cemea ful to preft apopnratosng and evalua- pages (including 14 annexes). English, desinersofmnitoing nd ealua Frnch, Spanish, and Arabic. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. tion systems, and to project staff who Fre 452. April 1981. 35 pages (including work with these systems. Stock Nlos. PP-7501-E, PP-7501-F, references, bibliography). TheJohns,tfopkins Uniuersity Press. PP-7501-S,PP-7501-A. $5.00 StockNo. WP-0452.$3.00. 1982.145 pages. French and Spanish paperback. forthcoming. Managing Information for (C 26.50)paperback. Problems and Remedies Rural Development: Lessons Robert Chambers
ruido Deboeck and 5i11Kinsey Monitoring Rural Develop- World Bank Staff Working Paper No. WorldBank Staff Working Paper No. ment in East Asia r Jl1.1g(ud). 379. March 1980. vii + 70 pages Guido Deboeck and Ronald Ng Stock No.c3e00. WP-0400. (including 5 annexes, index). World Bank Staff Working Paper No. StockNo. WP-0379. $3.00. 439. October 1980. 91 pages (including Rural Projects Through anncke).W Urban Eyes: An Interpreta- Measuring Project Impact: Stock No. WP-0439.$3.00. tion of the World Bank's Monitoring and Evaluation New-Style Rural Develop- in the PIDER Rural Develop- Nutritional Consequences ment Projects ment Project-Mexico of Agricultural Projects: Judith Tendler Michael M. Cemea Conceptual Relationships This paper describes the Bank's new- and Assessment style rural development projects, WorldBank StaffWorking Paper lo.* Approaches including some of the things that hap- 332. June 1979. ui + 131pages Pn pen in the political environment of a (including 3 annexes, appendix, map), Per Pinstrup-Andersen project when governments, assisted Stock No. WP-0332. $5.00. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. by the Bank. redirect their public-sec- 456. April 1981. 93 pages (including tor services and subsidies to the rural bibliography, appendix). poor. NEW Stock No. WP-0456. $3.00. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 532.1982. 100 pages. Monitoring and Evaluation ISBN 0-8213-0028-8. $3.00. of Agiculture and Rural Prices, Taxes, and Subsidies Development Projects In Pakistan Agriculture, Aspects of Dennis J. Casley 1960-1976 and Denis A. Lury Carl Gotsch and Gilbert Brown Developing Small-Scale This book provides a how-to tool for World Bank Staff Working Paper No. Fisheries: Delivering the design and implementation of 387. April 1980.108 pages. Sechard B. Polinac monitoring and evaluation systems in Stock No. WP-0387.$5.00. rural development projects. Because World Bank Staff Working Paper No. rural development projects are com- 490. October1981. iii + 61 pages plex, they seek to benefit large num- (including references). bers of people in remote rural areas, Stockrio. WP-0490.$3.00. Some Aspects of Wheat and Credit and Sharecropping in Agrarian Rice Price Policy In India societies Raj Krishna and Cl.S. Avishay Braverman and TN. Srinivasan Raychaudhuri World Bank Reprint Series: Number216. Reprinted from Joumal of Development World Bank Staff Working Paper Nlo. Economics. vol. 9 (December 1981): 289-312. 381.April 1980. 62 pages (including Stock No. RP-0216.free of charge. 2 appendixes, 6 tables, bibliography). Stockrio.$3.00. -0.381. Fann StockIYo. WP-0381. $3.00. RevolutionSize andTechnology the Diffusion On Information of Green and Innovation Diffusion:.A Bayesian Approach A System of Monitoring and Gershon Feder and Gerald T. O'Mara Evaluating Agricultural World dank Repnnt Series: rtumber 207 Extension Projects Reprintedfrom EconomicDevelopment and Michael M. Cemea and CulturalChange, vol. 30. no. 1 (October J. Temping 1981).59-76;and AmericanJournal of Agricultural Benjamin J. Tepping Economics.vol. 64, no. I (February 1982):145-47.
World Bank Staff Working Paper NIo. Stock Nlo. RP-0207. free of charge. 272. December 1977. ui + US pages (including 9 annexes, bibliography). Sociological Dimensions of Extensiqn Stock [lo. WP-02 72. $5.00. Organization: The Introduction of the T&VSystem In India Michael M. Cemea ThaHand-CaseStudy of BankReprint Series:Number 196. Thailand-Case Study of ~~~~~~WorldReprinteed from Extension Education and Rural Agrcultural Input and Development. uol. 2. (1981):221-35. 281. Output Pricing Stocic No. RP-0196. Freeof charge. Trent Bertrand World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 385. April 1980. ix + 134 pages NEW (including2 appendixes). Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects StockNo. WP-0385.$5.00. &cond edition, completely revised and expanded REPRINITS J. Price Gittinger This entirely new edition of the World Banks best-selling Adoption ofInterreltedAgriyanturah book sets out a careful and practical methodology for Imnovations: Compeent,anty C nd the analyzing agricultural development projects and for using Gershon Feder these analyses to compare proposed investments. It covers what constitutes a 'project," what must be con- WorldBank Reprint Series:Number 206. sidered to identify possible agricultural projects, the life Reprintedfrom American Joumal of Agricultural cycle of a project, the strengths and pitfalls of project Economics, vol. 64, no. I (February1982):94-101. analysis, and the calculations required to obtain financial StockNo. RP-0206.free of charge. and economic project accounts. In the ten years since its publication, the first edition has Agicultural Policies and Development: been accepted widely as a standard reference and text. The A Sodoeconomic Investgation Appied methodology reflects the best of contemporary practice in Martha de;. Melo government agencies and international development institutions concerned with investing in agriculture and is WorldBank Reprint Series:Number 191. accessible to a broad readership of agricultural planners, Reprintedf[om The Joumal of PolicyModeling, engineers, and analysts. vol.1[In. 2 {May 1979).e2o7-a4. This revision adds a wealth of recent project data; StockNo. RP-0191. free of charge. expanded treatment of farm budgets and the efflciency prices used to calculate the effects of an investment on Choice of Technique in Sahellan Rlce national income; a glossary of technical terms; expanded Production appendixes on preparing an agricultural project report and Charles e ttumphreys and Scott R. Pearon using discounting tables; and an expanded, completely World Bank ReprintSeries: Number 199. annotated bibliography. Reprintedfrom FoodResearch Studies, uol. 17. EDI Series in Economic Development. no. 3 (1979-80):2.35-77. DSeisiEcnmceuop nt StockNo. RP-0199. free of charge. The Johns llopkins University Press. July 1982. 528 pages (including appendLres and glossary/index). LC 82-15262. ISBII 0-8018-2912-7, $37.50 (E22.50) hardcover: ISBN 0-8018-2913-5, $13.50 (18.75) paperback.
WORLDBANK PUBLICATIONS ORDERFORM SENDTO: WORLDBANK PUBLICATIONS WORLDBANK PUBLICATIONS P.O.BOX 37525 or 66, AVENUED'IENA WASHINGTON,D.C. 20013 75116PARIS, FRANCE U.S.A. Name: Address:
Stockor ISBN# Author,Title Qty. Price | Total
Sub-TotalCost: Postage& handlingfee for more than two free items ($1 .00 each):
Totalcopies: _____ Air mailsurcharge ($2.00 each): OTAL PAYMENTENCLOSED: Makechecks payable: WORLD BANK PUBLICATIONS
Prepayment on orders from individuals is requested. Purchase orders are accepted from booksellers, library suppliers, libraries, and institutions. All prices include cost of postage by the least expensive means. The prices and publication dates quoted in this Catalog are subject to change wvithoutnotice. No refunds will be given for items that cannot be filled. Credit will be applied towards future orders. No more than two free publications will be provided without charge. Requests for additional copies will be filled at a charge of US Si.00 per copy to cover handling and postage costs. Airmail delivery will require a prepayment of US $2.00 per copy. Mail-order payment to the World Bank need not be in U.S. dollars, but the amount remitted must be at the rate of exchange on the day the order is placed. The World Bank will also accept Unesco coupons.
The World Bank Headquarters EuropeanOffice Tokyo Office U 1818 H Street, N.W. 66, avenue d'lena Kokusai Building Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 75116 Paris, France 1-1 Marunouchi 3-chome Telephone: (202) 477-1234 Telephone: (1) 723-54.21 Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan Telex: WUI 64145 WORLDBANK Telex: 842-620628 Telephone: (03) 214-5001 RCA 248423 WORLDBK Telex: 781-26838 Cable Address: INTBAFRAD WASHINGTONDC
ISSN 0253-7494 ISBN 0-8213-0272-8